10-K
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|
|
For the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2005. |
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|
|
For the Transition period
from to . |
Commission file No. 001-15891
NRG Energy, Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware |
|
41-1724239 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization) |
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
211 Carnegie Center
Princeton, New Jersey |
|
08540 |
(Address of principal executive offices) |
|
(Zip Code) |
(609) 524-4500
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class |
|
Name of Exchange on Which Registered |
|
|
|
5.75% Mandatorily Convertible Preferred Stock
|
|
New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Exchange
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed
all reports to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant
was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject
to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
(§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of the Registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K or any
amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act.
Large accelerated
filer þ Accelerated
filer o Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
As of the last business day of the most recently completed
second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the common
stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates was approximately
$3,272,968,478 based on the closing sale price of $37.60 as
reported on the New York Stock Exchange.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all
documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12,
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to
the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a
court. Yes þ No o
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the
registrants classes of common stock as of the latest
practicable date.
|
|
|
Class |
|
Outstanding at March 3, 2006 |
|
|
|
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share
|
|
136,975,275 |
Documents Incorporated by Reference:
Portions of the Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting
of Stockholders to be held on April 28, 2006
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX
1
Glossary of Terms
When the following terms and abbreviations appear in the text of
this report, they have the meanings indicated below:
|
|
|
APB
|
|
Accounting Principles Board |
APB 18
|
|
APB Opinion No. 18, The Equity Method of
Accounting for Investments in Common Stock. |
Average gross heat rate
|
|
The product of dividing(a) fuel consumed in BTUs
by(b) KWh generated. |
BART
|
|
Best Available Retrofit Technology |
Baseload capacity
|
|
Electric power generation capacity normally expected to serve
loads on an around-=the-clock basis throughout the calendar year. |
BTA
|
|
Best Technology Available |
BTU
|
|
British Thermal Unit |
CAA
|
|
Clean Air Act |
CAIR
|
|
Clean Air Interstate Rule |
Cal ISO
|
|
California Independent System Operator. |
CAMR
|
|
Clean Air Mercury Rule |
Capacity factor
|
|
The ratio of the actual net electricity generated to the energy
that could have been generated at continuous full-power
operation during the year. |
CDWR
|
|
California Department of Water Resources |
CERCLA
|
|
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act |
CL&P
|
|
Connecticut Light & Power |
CO
2
|
|
Carbon dioxide |
CPUC
|
|
California Public Utilities Commission, |
CTDEP
|
|
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection |
CWA
|
|
Clean Water Act |
DNREC
|
|
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control |
EAF
|
|
The total available hours a unit is available in a year minus
the sum of all partial outage events in a year converted to
equivalent hours, expressed as a percent of all hours in the year |
EFOR
|
|
Equivalent Forced Outage Rates considers the
equivalent impact that forced de-ratings have in addition to
full forced outages |
EITF
|
|
Emerging Issues Task Force |
EITF 91-6
|
|
EITF No. 91-6, Revenue Recognition of Long-Term
Power Sales Contracts. |
EITF 02-3
|
|
EITF Issue No. 02-3, Issues Involved in Accounting
for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts
Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management
Activities |
EITF 03-11
|
|
EITF Issue No. 03-11, Reporting Realized Gains and
Losses on Derivative Instruments that are Subject to FASB
Statement No. 133 and Not Held for Trading
Purposes as Defined in EITF Issue No. 02-03. |
EPA
|
|
Environmental Protection Agency |
2
|
|
|
ERCOT
|
|
Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the Independent System
Operator and the regional reliability coordinator of the various
electricity systems within Texas |
ERISA
|
|
Employee Retirement Income Security Act |
Expected annual baseload generation
|
|
The net baseload capacity limited by economic factors
(relationship between cost of generation and market price) and
reliability factors (scheduled and unplanned outages) |
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board, the designated
organization for establishing standards for financial accounting
and reporting |
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FF-ACI
|
|
Fabric Filter with Activated Carbon Injection |
FGD
|
|
Flue Gas Desulphurization |
FIN
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation |
FIN 45
|
|
FIN No. 45 Guarantors Accounting and
Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect
Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others. |
FIN 46R
|
|
FIN No. 46 (Revised 2003), Consolidation of
Variable Interest Entities |
FIP
|
|
Federal Implementation Plan |
Fresh Start
|
|
Reporting requirements as defined by SOP 90-7 |
FSP
|
|
FASB Staff Position (interpretations of standards issued by the
staff of the FASB) |
FSP 106-1
|
|
FSP 106-1, Accounting and Disclosure Requirements
Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2003 |
FSP 106-2
|
|
FSP 106-2, Accounting and Disclosure Requirements
Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2003 |
GHG
|
|
Greenhouse Gases |
IGCC
|
|
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle |
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service |
ISO
|
|
Independent System Operator, also referred to as regional
transmission organizations, or RTO |
ISO-NE
|
|
ISO New England, Inc. |
KWh
|
|
kilowatt-hours |
LADEQ
|
|
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality |
LIBOR
|
|
London Inter-Bank Offered Rate |
LNB/OFA
|
|
Low NO
x
Burner with Over Fire Air |
MACT
|
|
Maximum Achievable Control Technology |
MADEP
|
|
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection |
Moodys
|
|
Moodys Investors Services, Inc. |
MISO
|
|
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator |
MW
|
|
Megawatts |
MWh
|
|
Saleable megawatt hours net of internal/parasitic load
megawatt-hours |
NAAQS
|
|
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
Net baseload capacity
|
|
Nominal summer net megawatt capacity of power generation
adjusted for ownership and parasitic load, and excluding
capacity from mothballed units as of December 31, 2005 |
3
|
|
|
Net Capacity Factor
|
|
Net actual generation divided by net maximum capacity for the
period hours |
Net Generating Capacity
|
|
Nominal summer capacity, net of auxiliary power |
NiMo
|
|
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation |
NO
x
|
|
Nitrogen oxides |
NOL
|
|
Net operating loss |
NRC
|
|
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
NSR
|
|
New Source Review |
NYISO
|
|
New York Independent System Operator. |
NYSDEC
|
|
New York Department of Environmental Conservation |
OCI
|
|
Other Comprehensive Income |
OTC
|
|
Ozone Transport Commission |
PJM
|
|
PJM Interconnection, LLC |
PJM Market
|
|
The wholesale and retail electric market operated by PJM
primarily in all or parts of Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and
West Virginia. |
PM
2.5
|
|
Fine particulate matter |
PSD
|
|
Prevention of Significant Deterioration |
PUCT
|
|
Public Utility Commission of Texas |
Powder River Basin, or PRB Coal
|
|
Coal produced in the northeastern Wyoming and southeastern
Montana, which coal has low sulfur content |
RCRA
|
|
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act |
RECLAIM
|
|
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market |
RGGI
|
|
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative |
RMR
|
|
Reliability must-run |
RTC
|
|
RECLAIM Trading Credit |
RTO
|
|
Regional transmission organization |
S&P
|
|
Standard & Poors, a division of the McGraw Hill
Companies |
SARA
|
|
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 |
Sarbanes-Oxley
|
|
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 |
SCAQMD
|
|
South Coast Air Quality Management District |
SCR
|
|
Selective Catalytic Reduction |
SDG&E
|
|
San Diego Gas & Electric |
SEC
|
|
United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
SERC
|
|
Southeastern Electric Reliability Council/ Entergy |
SFAS
|
|
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards issued by the FASB |
SFAS 71
|
|
SFAS No. 71 Accounting for the Effects of
Certain Types of Regulation |
SFAS 87
|
|
SFAS No. 87, Employers Accounting for
Pensions |
SFAS 106
|
|
SFAS No. 106, Employers Accounting for
Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions |
SFAS 109
|
|
SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes |
SFAS 123
|
|
SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation |
SFAS 123R
|
|
SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based
Payment |
SFAS 133
|
|
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities |
4
|
|
|
SFAS 140
|
|
SFAS No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and
Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of
Liabilities, a replacement of FASB Statement 125 |
SFAS 142
|
|
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets |
SFAS 143
|
|
SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations |
SFAS 144
|
|
SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment
or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets |
SIP
|
|
State Implementation Plan |
SO
2
|
|
Sulfur dioxide |
SOP
|
|
Statement of Position issued by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants |
SOP 90-7
|
|
Statement of Position 90-7 Financial Reporting by
Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code |
SPP
|
|
Southwest Power Pool |
STP
|
|
South Texas Project Texas Gencos nuclear
generating facility located in Bay City, TX of which we own a
44% interest |
TCEQ
|
|
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality |
Texas Genco
|
|
Texas Genco LLC |
US
|
|
United States of America |
USEPA
|
|
US Environmental Protection Agency |
US GAAP
|
|
Accounting principles generally accepted in the US |
WCP
|
|
WCP (Generation) Holdings, Inc. |
5
PART I
Item 1 Business
For purposes of discussing our business in this Business Section
of our Annual Report, we, our,
us, the combined company and the
Company refer to NRG and Texas Genco on a combined
basis, together with their consolidated subsidiaries, after
giving effect to the completion of the acquisition of Texas
Genco, or the Acquisition. The terms MW and
MWh refer to megawatts and megawatt-hours. The
megawatt figures provided represent nominal summer net megawatt
capacity of power generated as adjusted for the combined
companys ownership position excluding capacity from
inactive/mothballed units as of December 31, 2005. NRG has
previously shown gross MWs when presenting its operations.
Capacity is tested following standard industry practices. The
combined companys numbers denote saleable MWs net of
internal/parasitic load. The term expected annual baseload
generation refers to the net baseload capacity limited by
economic factors (relationship between cost of generation and
market price) and reliability factors (scheduled and unplanned
outages).
General
We are a leading wholesale power generation company with a
significant presence in many of the major competitive power
markets in the United States. We are primarily engaged in the
ownership and operation of power generation facilities,
purchasing fuel and transportation services to support our power
plant operations, and marketing and trading energy, capacity and
related products in the competitive markets in which we operate.
On February 2, 2006, NRG acquired Texas Genco LLC by
purchasing all of the outstanding equity interests in Texas
Genco. The purchase price of approximately $6.1 billion
consisted of approximately $4.4 billion in cash and the
issuance of approximately 35.4 million shares of NRGs
common stock valued at approximately $1.7 billion, and we
assumed a total of approximately $2.7 billion of Texas
Gencos outstanding debt. The purchase price is subject to
adjustment due to acquisition costs. Texas Genco is now a
wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG, and will be managed and
accounted for as a new business segment to be referred to as NRG
Texas.
As of December 31, 2005, the combined company has a total
global portfolio of 235 operating generation units at 61 power
generation plants, with an aggregate generation capacity of
approximately 24,580 MW. Within the United States, the
combined company has a large and geographically diversified
power generation portfolio with approximately 22,663 MW of
generation capacity in 213 generating units at 53 plants. These
power generation facilities are primarily located in our core
regions in the ERCOT market (approximately 10,658 MW), and
in the Northeast (approximately 7,099 MW), South Central
(approximately 2,395 MW) and Western (approximately
1,044 MW) regions of the United States. Our facilities
consist primarily of baseload, intermediate and peaking power
generation facilities, and also include thermal energy
production and energy resource recovery plants. The sale of
capacity and power from baseload generation facilities accounts
for the majority of our revenues and provides a stable source of
cash flow. In addition, our diverse generation portfolio
provides us with opportunities to capture additional revenues by
selling power into our core regions during periods of peak
demand, offering capacity or similar products to retail electric
providers and others, and providing ancillary services to
support system reliability.
On December 27, 2005, we entered into a definitive
agreement with Dynegy, Inc., to acquire Dynegys 50% of
WCP. When completed this acquisition will give NRG sole
ownership of WCPs 1,800 MW of generation capacity in
California. Our disclosures as to MWs and financial information
do not include the remaining 50% interest in WCP.
Our Strategy
Our strategy is to optimize the value of our generation assets
while using that asset base as a platform for enhanced financial
performance which can be sustained and expanded upon in years to
come. We plan to maintain and enhance our position as a leading
wholesale power generation company in the United States in a
6
cost effective and risk-mitigating manner in order to serve the
bulk power requirements of our customer base and other entities
that offer load, or otherwise consume wholesale electricity
products and services in bulk. Our strategy includes the
following elements:
Increase value from our existing assets. We have a highly
diversified portfolio of power generation assets in terms of
region, fuel type and dispatch levels. We will continue to focus
on extracting value from our portfolio by improving plant
performance, reducing costs and harnessing our advantages of
scale in the procurement of fuels: a strategy that we have
branded FORNRG, or Focus on ROIC@NRG.
Pursue intrinsic growth opportunities at existing sites in
our core regions. We are favorably positioned to pursue
growth opportunities through expansion of our existing
generating capacity. We intend to invest in our existing assets
through plant improvements, repowering and brownfield
development to meet anticipated regional requirements for new
capacity. We expect that these efforts will provide more
efficient energy, lower our delivered cost, expand our
electricity production capability and improve our ability to
dispatch economically across sectors of the merit order,
including baseload, intermediate and peaking generation.
Maintain financial strength and flexibility. We remain
focused on increasing cash flow and maintaining liquidity and
balance sheet strength in order to ensure continued access to
capital for growth; enhancing risk-adjusted returns; and
providing flexibility in executing our business strategy. We
will continue our focus on maintaining operational and financial
controls designed to ensure that our financial position remains
strong.
Reduce the volatility of our cash flows through asset-based
commodity hedging activities. We will continue to execute
asset-based risk management, hedging, marketing and trading
strategies within well-defined risk and liquidity guidelines in
order to manage the value of our physical and contractual
assets. Our marketing and hedging philosophy is centered on
generating stable returns from our portfolio of power generation
assets while preserving the ability to capitalize on strong spot
market conditions and to capture the extrinsic value of our
portfolio. We believe that we can successfully execute this
strategy by taking advantage of our expertise in the trading and
marketing of power and ancillary services, our knowledge of
markets, our flexible financial structure and our diverse
portfolio of power generation assets.
Participate in continued industry consolidation. We will
continue to pursue selective acquisitions, joint ventures and
divestitures to enhance our asset mix and competitive position
in our core regions to meet the fuel and dispatch requirements
in these regions. We intend to concentrate on acquisition and
joint venture opportunities that present attractive
risk-adjusted returns. We will also opportunistically pursue
other strategic transactions, including mergers, acquisitions or
divestitures during the consolidation of the power generation
industry in the United States.
Our Competitive Strengths
Scale and diversity of assets. The combined company has
one of the largest and most diversified power generation
portfolios in the United States with approximately
22,663 MW of generation capacity in 213 generating
units at 53 plants as of December 31, 2005. Our power
generation assets are diversified by fuel type, dispatch level
and region, which helps mitigate the risks associated with fuel
price volatility and market demand cycles. The combined
companys U.S. baseload facilities consist of
approximately 8,558 MW of generation capacity and provide
the combined company with a significant source of stable cash
flow, while the combined companys intermediate and peaking
facilities, with approximately 14,105 MW of generation
capacity, provide the combined company with opportunities to
capture the significant upside potential that can arise from
time to time during periods of high demand. In addition,
approximately 10% of the combined companys domestic
generation facilities have dual or multiple fuel capability,
which allows most of these plants to dispatch with the lowest
cost fuel option.
7
The following chart demonstrates the diversification of the
combined companys generation assets:
|
|
(1) |
Reflects only domestic generation capacity; 19 MW of
wood-fired generation capacity not shown. |
Stability of future cash flows. We have sold forward a
significant amount of our expected baseload generation capacity
for 2006 and 2007. As of December 31, 2005 the company has
sold forward an average of 77% of its baseload generation in the
Texas (ERCOT) market for 2006 through 2009. As of the same
date, the combined company sold an average of 78% of its
expected annual baseload generation in the SERC
Entergy market for 2006 through 2009, and approximately 76% of
its expected annual baseload generation in the Northeast region
for 2006. In addition, as of December 31, 2005, the
combined company purchased forward under fixed price fuel
contracts (with contractually-specified price escalators) to
provide fuel for approximately 81% of its expected baseload coal
generation output from 2006 to 2009.
Favorable market dynamics for baseload power plants. As
of December 31, 2005, approximately 39% of the
companys domestic generation capacity has been fueled by
coal or nuclear fuel. In many of the competitive markets where
we operate, the price of power typically is set by the marginal
costs of natural gas-fired and oil-fired power plants. These oil
and gas fired plants currently have substantially higher
variable costs than our solid fuel baseload power plants. As a
result of our lower marginal cost for baseload coal and nuclear
generation assets, we expect such assets to generate power
nearly 100% of the time they are available.
Locational advantages. Many of our generation assets are
located within densely populated areas that are characterized by
significant constraints on the transmission of power from
generators outside the region. Consequently, these assets are
able to benefit from the higher prices that prevail for energy
in these markets during periods of transmission constraints. The
Company has generation assets located within New York City,
southwestern Connecticut, Houston and the Los Angeles and
San Diego load basins, all areas with constraints on the
transmission of electricity. This allows us to capture
additional revenues through offering capacity to retail electric
providers and other entities serving load within the
transmission constrained areas, selling power at prevailing
market prices during periods of peak demand and providing
ancillary services in support of system reliability.
8
Performance Metrics
The following table contains a summary of NRGs North
American power generation revenues from majority-owned
subsidiaries for the year 2005 (figures for our Texas facilities
are not included):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy | |
|
Capacity | |
|
Energy | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
Region |
|
Revenues | |
|
Revenues | |
|
Revenues | |
|
O&M Fees |
|
Revenues*** | |
|
Revenues | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Northeast
|
|
$ |
1,444 |
|
|
$ |
291 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(181 |
) |
|
$ |
1,554 |
|
South Central
|
|
|
330 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
552 |
|
Western*
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total North America Power Generation**
|
|
$ |
1,786 |
|
|
$ |
482 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(148 |
) |
|
$ |
2,122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Consists of our wholly-owned subsidiary, NEO California LLC.
Does not include revenues which were produced by assets in which
we have a 50% equity interest, primarily West Coast Power, and
are reported under the equity method of accounting. |
|
|
|
|
** |
For additional information see
Item 15 Note 21 of the Consolidated
Financial Statements for our consolidated revenues by segment
disclosures. |
|
|
*** |
Includes miscellaneous revenues from the sale of natural gas,
recovery of incurred costs under reliability must-run
agreements, revenues received under leasing arrangements,
revenues from maintenance, revenues from the sale of ancillary
services and revenues from entering into certain financial
transactions, offset by contract amortization. |
In understanding our business, we believe that certain
performance metrics are particularly important. These are
industry statistics defined by the North American Electric
Reliability Council and are more fully described below:
Annual Equivalent Availability Factor, or EAF: is the
total available hours a unit is available in a year minus the
sum of all partial outage events in a year converted to
equivalent hours (EH), where EH is partial megawatts lost
divided by unit net available capacity times hours of each
event, and the net of these hours is divided by hours in a year
to achieve EAF in percent.
Average gross heat rate: We calculate the average heat
rate for our fossil-fired power plants by dividing (a) fuel
consumed in Btus by (b) KWh generated. The resultant heat
rate is a measure of fuel efficiency.
Net Capacity Factor: Net actual generation divided by net
maximum capacity for the period hours.
The tables below present the North American power generation
performance metrics for owned assets discussed above for the
years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004
(figures for our Texas facilities are not included):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Average Net | |
|
|
|
|
Net Owned | |
|
Generation | |
|
Availability | |
|
Heat Rate | |
|
Net Capacity | |
Region |
|
Capacity (MW) | |
|
(MWh) | |
|
Factor | |
|
Btu/KWh | |
|
Factor | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Northeast*
|
|
|
7,099 |
|
|
|
15,251,449 |
|
|
|
87.2% |
|
|
|
11,146 |
|
|
|
22.9% |
|
South Central
|
|
|
2,395 |
|
|
|
10,116,622 |
|
|
|
90.9% |
|
|
|
10,518 |
|
|
|
50.6% |
|
Western**
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
|
|
1,588,962 |
|
|
|
86.5% |
|
|
|
11,109 |
|
|
|
18.0% |
|
Other North America
|
|
|
1,467 |
|
|
|
247,721 |
|
|
|
90.6% |
|
|
|
14,297 |
|
|
|
3.4% |
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Average Net | |
|
|
|
|
Net Owned | |
|
Generation | |
|
Availability | |
|
Heat Rate | |
|
Net Capacity | |
Region |
|
Capacity (MW) | |
|
(MWh) | |
|
Factor | |
|
Btu/KWh | |
|
Factor | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Northeast*
|
|
|
7,099 |
|
|
|
13,205,040 |
|
|
|
85.6% |
|
|
|
10,823 |
|
|
|
19.8% |
|
South Central
|
|
|
2,395 |
|
|
|
10,470,786 |
|
|
|
92.1% |
|
|
|
10,494 |
|
|
|
52.9% |
|
Western**
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
|
|
2,291,844 |
|
|
|
88.4% |
|
|
|
10,624 |
|
|
|
25.6% |
|
Other North America***
|
|
|
1,467 |
|
|
|
147,376 |
|
|
|
97.3% |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
2.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Net Generation and the other metrics do not include Keystone and
Conemaugh. |
|
|
|
|
** |
Includes 50% of the generation owned through our West Coast
Power partnership. |
|
|
*** |
Excludes operations for Kendall, McClain and Batesville which
were sold during 2004. |
The tables below present the Australian power generation
performance metrics discussed above for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Average Net | |
|
|
|
|
Net Owned | |
|
Generation | |
|
Availability | |
|
Heat Rate | |
|
Net Capacity | |
Region |
|
Capacity (MW) | |
|
(MWh) | |
|
Factor | |
|
Btu/KWh | |
|
Factor | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Flinders Northern Power Station
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
3,990,642 |
|
|
|
95.8% |
|
|
|
10,900 |
|
|
|
94.9% |
|
Flinders Playford Power Station
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
458,180 |
|
|
|
57.9% |
|
|
|
15,900 |
|
|
|
23.8% |
|
Gladstone*
|
|
|
605 |
|
|
|
2,808,335 |
|
|
|
93.3% |
|
|
|
10,300 |
|
|
|
53.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Average Net | |
|
|
|
|
Net Owned | |
|
Generation | |
|
Availability | |
|
Heat Rate | |
|
Net Capacity | |
Region |
|
Capacity (MW) | |
|
(MWh) | |
|
Factor | |
|
Btu/KWh | |
|
Factor | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Flinders Northern Power Station
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
3,924,196 |
|
|
|
93.2% |
|
|
|
11,400 |
|
|
|
93.1% |
|
Flinders Playford Power Station
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
365,642 |
|
|
|
46.0% |
|
|
|
16,300 |
|
|
|
18.9% |
|
Gladstone*
|
|
|
605 |
|
|
|
2,879,236 |
|
|
|
83.2% |
|
|
|
10,200 |
|
|
|
54.2% |
|
|
|
* |
Includes 37.5% of the generation owned through our Gladstone
Unincorporated Joint Venture. |
10
Generation Asset Overview
We have a significant power generation presence in many of the
major competitive power markets of the United States as set out
below:
Texas (ERCOT)
As of December 31, 2005, Texas Gencos generation
assets in the ERCOT market consisted of approximately
5,178 MW of baseload generation assets and approximately
5,480 MW of intermediate, cyclic and peaking natural
gas-fired assets. We expect that the combined company will
realize a substantial majority of its revenue and cash flow from
the sale of power from its three baseload power plants located
in the ERCOT market that use solid fuel: W. A. Parish (coal),
Limestone (lignite and PRB coal) and an undivided 44% interest
in two nuclear generation units at STP (nuclear fuel). Because
plants are generally dispatched in order of lowest operating
cost, and approximately 73% of the net generation capacity in
the ERCOT market was natural gas-fired, we expect these three
baseload plants to operate nearly 100% of the time (subject to
planned and forced outages) due to their low marginal costs
relative to natural gas-fired plants.
The following table summarizes the ERCOT baseload forward power
sales and natural gas swap agreements that extend beyond
December 31, 2005. The amounts summarized below reflect
forward sales volumes and average prices as of December 31,
2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average for | |
|
Average for | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
2010 | |
|
2006-2007 | |
|
2006-2010 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net Baseload Capacity (MW)
|
|
|
5,294 |
|
|
|
5,340 |
|
|
|
5,340 |
|
|
|
5,340 |
|
|
|
5,340 |
|
|
|
5,317 |
|
|
|
5,331 |
|
Total Baseload Sales
(MW)(1)
|
|
|
4,375 |
|
|
|
4,267 |
|
|
|
4,157 |
|
|
|
3,449 |
|
|
|
1,395 |
|
|
|
4,321 |
|
|
|
3,529 |
|
Percentage Baseload Capacity Sold Forward
|
|
|
83 |
% |
|
|
80 |
% |
|
|
78 |
% |
|
|
65 |
% |
|
|
26 |
% |
|
|
81 |
% |
|
|
66 |
% |
Weighted Average Forward Price ($ per
MWh)(2)
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
Total Revenues Sold Forward ($ in
millions)(2)
|
|
$ |
1,690 |
|
|
$ |
1,443 |
|
|
$ |
1,505 |
|
|
$ |
1,434 |
|
|
$ |
621 |
|
|
$ |
1,566 |
|
|
$ |
1,338 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes amounts under fixed price firm and non-firm power sales
contracts and amounts financially hedged under natural gas swap
contracts. The forward natural gas swap quantities are reflected
in equivalent MW and are derived by first dividing the quantity
of MMBtu of natural gas hedged by the forward market heat rate
(in MMBtu/ MWh, mid-point of the bid and offer as quoted by |
11
|
|
|
brokers in the market of the
relevant Electric Reliability Council of Texas zones as of
December 30, 2005) to arrive at the equivalent MWh hedged
which is then divided by 8,760 to arrive at MW hedged.
|
|
|
(2) |
Includes amounts under fixed price power sales contracts and
amounts financially hedged under natural gas swap contracts. |
As of December 31, 2005, approximately 7,099 MW of
NRGs generation capacity consisted of power plants in the
Northeast region of the United States, including power plants
within the control areas of the New York Independent System
Operator, or NYISO, the ISO-New England, Inc., or ISO-NE, and
the PJM Interconnection LLC., or PJM. Certain of these
assets are located in transmission constrained areas, including
approximately 1,394 MW of in-city New York City generation
capacity and approximately 538 MW of southwest Connecticut
generation capacity. As of December 31, 2005, NRGs
generation assets in the Northeast region consisted of
approximately 1,876 MW of baseload generation assets and
approximately 5,223 MW of intermediate and peaking assets.
The following table summarizes Northeasts baseload forward
power sales that extend beyond December 31, 2005. The
amounts summarized below reflect forward sales volumes and
average prices as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average for | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
2010 | |
|
2006-2007 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net Baseload Capacity (MW)
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
|
|
1,876 |
|
Total Baseload Sales (MW)
|
|
|
1,410 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,009 |
|
Percentage Baseload Capacity Sold Forward
|
|
|
75 |
% |
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
|
% |
|
|
54 |
% |
Weighted Average Forward Price ($ per MWh)
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
Total Revenues Sold Forward ($ in millions)
|
|
$ |
885 |
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
645 |
|
As of December 31, 2005, NRG owned approximately
2,395 MW of generation capacity in the South Central region
of the United States, making NRG the third largest generator in
the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council/ Entergy, or
SERC-Entergy, region. NRGs generation assets in the South
Central region consisted of approximately 1,489 MW of
baseload generation assets and 906 MW of intermediate and
peaking assets. NRGs primary asset is the Big
Cajun II coal-fired plant near Baton Rouge, where NRG has
approximately 1,489 MW of generation capacity.
The following table summarizes South Centrals baseload
forward power sales that extend beyond December 31, 2005.
The amounts summarized below reflect forward sales volumes and
average prices as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average for | |
|
Average for | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
2010 | |
|
2006-2007 | |
|
2006-2010 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net Baseload Capacity (MW)
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
Total Baseload Sales
(MW)(1)
|
|
|
1,150 |
|
|
|
1,097 |
|
|
|
1,088 |
|
|
|
1,015 |
|
|
|
1,008 |
|
|
|
1,124 |
|
|
|
1,072 |
|
Percentage Baseload Capacity Sold Forward
|
|
|
77 |
% |
|
|
74 |
% |
|
|
73 |
% |
|
|
68 |
% |
|
|
68 |
% |
|
|
75 |
% |
|
|
72 |
% |
Weighted Average Forward Price ($ per MWh)
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
Total Revenues Sold Forward ($ in millions)
|
|
$ |
307 |
|
|
$ |
308 |
|
|
$ |
314 |
|
|
$ |
303 |
|
|
$ |
316 |
|
|
$ |
307 |
|
|
$ |
310 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Total Baseload Sales volumes for South Central are estimated
volumes using historical load information. |
As of December 31, 2005, NRGs assets in the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council, or WECC, the power market for
the West Coast of the United States, included approximately
1,044 MW of generation
12
capacity, most of it in NRGs 50% interest in WCP Holdings.
NRGs generation assets in the Western region consisted of
approximately 1,044 MW of intermediate and peaking assets.
As part of NRGs strategy of optimizing NRGs asset
base, NRG retired approximately 265 MW of additional gross
generation capacity at the Long Beach generating facility on
January 1, 2005. On December 27, 2005, NRG entered
into a purchase and sale agreement to acquire Dynegys 50%
ownership interest in WCP Holdings to become the sole owner of
power plants totaling approximately 1,800 MW of generation
capacity in the Western region. On March 1, 2006, FERC
issued an order authorizing the transaction, pursuant to
section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
As of December 31, 2005, NRG owned approximately
1,305 MW of coal fired, primarily base load generation
plants in the Australian National Electricity Market
(NEM) 700 MW in the South Australian region
(NRG Flinders) and 605 MW in the Queensland Region
(Gladstone). NRG Flinders is a merchant generation business that
derives revenue from bidding its output into the NEM, by trading
the plant as a portfolio, selling derivative hedges that are not
plant specific and supplying minor retail sales via contract.
180 MW of gas fired power contracted from Osborne under a
long-term PPA is also traded as part of the portfolio. A hedge
book is maintained such that the short to medium term revenue is
secured via hedge levels up to and in the order of 75-80% of the
plant output. The current book is underpinned by a medium term
hedge with a major South Australian retailer. The Gladstone
assets are owned through an unincorporated joint venture with
other investors and NRG does not have unilateral control over
management of the assets. Gladstone Power Station is fully
contracted through 2029 via a PPA and a capacity purchase
agreement with Boyne Smelter Limited and Enertrade,
respectively. Enertrade is a state owned company that trades the
excess power in the NEM.
As of December 31, 2005, NRG had net ownership in
approximately 1,467 MW of additional generating capacity in
the United States. In addition to these traditional power
generation facilities, NRG also owns thermal and chilled water
businesses that generate approximately 1,225 MW thermal
equivalents, as well as resource recovery facilities, as
described below. NRG also owns interests in power plants having
a generation capacity of approximately 611 MW from a hydro
plant in Brazil and coal plants adjacent to our coal mines in
Germany.
Power Marketing and Commercial Operations
We seek to maximize profitability and manage cash flow
volatility through the marketing, trading and sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services into spot, intermediate and
long-term markets and through the active management and trading
of emissions credits, fuel supplies and transportation-related
services. Our principal objectives are the realization of the
full market value of our asset base, including the capture of
extrinsic value, the management and mitigation of commodity
market risk, and the reduction of cash flow volatility over time.
We enter into power sales and hedging arrangements via a wide
range of products and contracts, including power purchase
agreements, fuel supply contracts, capacity auctions, natural
gas swap agreements and other financial instruments. The power
purchase agreements we enter into require us to deliver MWh of
power to our counterparties. Natural gas swap agreements and
other financial instruments hedge the price we will receive for
power to be delivered in the future.
Before NRG acquired it, Texas Gencos capital structure
permitted the grant of second priority liens on its assets as
security for Texas Gencos obligations under certain
long-term power sales agreements and related hedges. The Credit
Agreement for NRGs senior secured debt and the Indentures
for NRGs high yield notes, which became effective as of
February 2, 2006, allow these arrangements to remain in
place. In addition, the new debt instruments also permit us to
grant second priority liens on our other assets in the United
States in order to secure obligations under power sales
agreements and related hedges, within certain limits. The seven
trading counterparties of Texas Genco who held second priority
liens on Texas Gencos assets as of
13
February 2, 2006, have been offered a second priority lien
on NRGs other assets under the new structure, as
additional collateral. Going forward, NRG anticipates that it
will use the second lien structure to reduce the amount of cash
collateral and letters of credit that it may otherwise be
required to post from time to time to support its obligations
under long term power sales and related hedges.
As of February 28, 2006, our net
mark-to-market exposure
on the hedges that are subject to the second lien structure was
$1.9 billion. The following table summarizes the
utilization of the second lien structure as of December 31,
2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 Months Starting | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Jan 1, | |
|
Jan 1, | |
|
Jan 1, | |
|
Jan 1, | |
|
Jan 1, | |
|
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
2010 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Equivalent Net Sales secured by Second Lien
Structure(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In MWh
|
|
|
2,081 |
|
|
|
3,067 |
|
|
|
2,513 |
|
|
|
2,999 |
|
|
|
1,395 |
|
|
As a percentage of net baseload capacity in collateral pool as
of February 2, 2006
|
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
44 |
% |
|
|
36 |
% |
|
|
43 |
% |
|
|
20 |
% |
|
|
(1) |
Equivalent Net Sales include natural gas swaps converted using a
weighted average heat rate by region. |
Our largest customer under the second lien structure is J.
Aron & Co., or J. Aron. The agreements with
J. Aron extend through December 31, 2010, and account
for approximately 26% of NRGs baseload generation in Texas
and approximately 16% of our total baseload capacity, as
measured in MWh through 2010.
In addition to the second lien described above, NRG also
provides cash collateral and letters of credit to secure its
obligations under hedge agreements and other power marketing
contracts. As of December 31, 2005, the combined company,
after giving effect to the Acquisition, had posted cash
collateral (including letters of credit) to support commercial
operations totaling $1.2 billion. The following table
summarizes, as of December 31, 2005, the combined company
collateral posted by credit rating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letters of | |
|
|
|
Collateral | |
Credit Rating |
|
Credit | |
|
Cash | |
|
Posted | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
A and above
|
|
$ |
616 |
|
|
$ |
392 |
|
|
$ |
1,008 |
|
BBB through BBB+
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
Below BBB-
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Not
Rated(1)
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
760 |
|
|
$ |
438 |
|
|
$ |
1,198 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Not Rated indicates that no rating has been issued, or that an
external rating agency (for example, Standard &
Poors or Moodys) does not rate a particular
obligation as a matter of policy. The Not Rated row above
consists of collateral posted to 17 counterparties, mainly gas
producers. |
Fuel Supply and Transportation
Our fuel requirements consist primarily of nuclear fuel and
various forms of fossil fuel including oil, natural gas and coal
(including lignite). We obtain our oil, natural gas and coal
from multiple sources. Although fossil fuels are generally
available for purchase, localized shortages, transportation
availability and supplier financial stability issues can and do
occur. The prices of oil, natural gas and coal are subject to
macro-and micro-economic forces that can change dramatically in
both the short-term and the long-term. We are largely hedged for
our domestic coal consumption over the next few years.
We arrange for the purchase, transportation and delivery of coal
for our coal plants via a range of coal purchase agreements,
rail and barge transportation agreements and rail car lease
arrangements. Coal consumption in 2006 for NRG is expected to be
approximately 36 million tons, which would rank us as one of
14
the top five coal purchasers in the United States. In addition,
approximately 92% of our coal-fired generation benefits from
multiple sourcing and transportation alternatives. The Company
has approximately 6,100 privately leased or owned rail cars in
its transportation fleet. In addition, we intend to enter into
contracts for delivery of approximately 2,700 additional rail
cars within the next two years of which approximately 2,200 will
replace existing rail cars. NRG has entered into rail
transportation agreements that provide for substantially all of
its rail transportation requirements through 2009.
STP satisfies its fuel supply requirements by acquiring uranium
concentrates and contracting for conversion of the uranium
concentrates into uranium hexafluoride, for enrichment of
uranium hexafluoride and for fabrication of nuclear fuel
assemblies. Through our subsidiary Texas Genco, we are party to
a number of contracts covering a portion of the fuel
requirements of STP for uranium, conversion and enrichment
services and fuel fabrication. The table below summarizes the
nuclear fuel situation at STP through the major processes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Process |
|
Supplier(s) |
|
Procurement Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 1
|
|
Yellow cake U(3)O(8). Conversion to uranium hexafluoride (UF(6)) |
|
Contracts with Cameco (Canada) and Cogema/Arriba (France)
combine these steps. |
|
100% covered through mid-2011 and then 25% covered through 2021. |
Step 2
|
|
Enrichment of U235 content |
|
Urenco (Germany), Cogema/ Arriba (France), Louisiana Enrichment
Services, or LES
(1)
(joint venture between Westinghouse & Urenco). |
|
Urenco and Cogema contracts cover through mid-2008. Contract
with Urenco/LES through 2027/2028. |
Step 3
|
|
Fabrication of fuel rods |
|
Westinghouse. |
|
Contract covers life of operating license. |
|
|
(1) |
Enrichment by LES assumes successful completion of LES licensing
and construction of facility in New Mexico. |
Financial Information About Segments and Geographic Areas
For financial information on NRGs operations on a
geographical and on a segment basis, see
Item 15 Note 21 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Dispositions of Non-Strategic Assets
We continued to market our interest in our remaining non-core
assets during 2005. Since 2003, we sold or made arrangements to
sell a number of consolidated businesses and equity investments
in an effort to reduce our debt, improve liquidity and
rationalize our investments. Dispositions completed during 2005
are summarized in the following chart:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Closing | |
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
Debt | |
Asset (Location) |
|
Type | |
|
Segment | |
|
Date | |
|
Proceeds | |
|
on Disposition | |
|
Reduction | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
Enfield, England
|
|
|
Equity investment |
|
|
|
Other International |
|
|
|
4/1/2005 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Kendall, IL
|
|
|
Equity investment |
|
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
8/8/2005 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Northbrook New York, NY and Northbrook Energy (Multi- state)
|
|
|
Discontinued operation |
|
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
8/11/2005 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
Bourbonnais, IL
|
|
|
Land sale |
|
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
8/31/2005 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaufman, TX
|
|
|
Land sale |
|
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
113 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
Reorganization
We were formed in 1992 as the non-utility subsidiary of Northern
States Power Company, or NSP, which was itself merged into New
Century Energies, Inc. to form Xcel Energy, Inc., or Xcel
Energy, in 2000. In 2002, a number of factors including the
overall downturn in the power generation industry, triggered a
series of credit rating downgrades which, in turn, precipitated
a severe liquidity crisis at the Company. From May 14 to
December 23, 2003, we and a number of our subsidiaries
undertook a comprehensive reorganization and restructuring under
chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. All NRG
entities have emerged from chapter 11 as of
December 31, 2005. As part of our reorganization, Xcel
Energy relinquished its ownership interest in us, and we became
an independent public company. We no longer have any material
affiliation or relationship with Xcel Energy.
Fresh Start Reporting
As a result of our emergence from bankruptcy, we adopted Fresh
Start Reporting, or Fresh Start. Under Fresh Start, our
confirmed enterprise value was allocated to our assets and
liabilities based on their respective fair values. See
Item 7 Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation Reorganization and Emergence from
Bankruptcy for additional information. 2004 was our first
complete year following the adoption of Fresh Start.
Significant Customers
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG (excluding Texas Genco) |
For the year ended December 31, 2005 we derived
approximately 50.2% of total revenues for majority owned
operations from two customers: NYISO accounted for 35.6% and
ISO-NE accounted for 14.6%. We account for the revenues
attributable to these customers as part of our Northeast segment.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we derived
approximately 37.8% of our total revenues from majority-owned
operations from two customers. NYISO accounted for 28.6% and ISO
New England accounted for 9.2%. We account for these revenues
attributable to NYISO and ISO New England as part of our
Northeast segment.
For the period December 6, 2003 through December 31,
2003, we derived approximately 39.4% of our total revenues from
majority-owned operations from two customers: NYISO accounted
for 26.8% and ISO New England accounted for 12.6%. Revenues from
NYISO and ISO New England are included in our Northeast segment.
For the period from January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003, sales to one customer, NYISO, accounted
for 33.4% of our total revenues from majority-owned operations.
Seasonality and Price Volatility
Annual and quarterly operating results can be significantly
affected by weather and energy commodity price volatility.
Significant other events, such as the demand for natural gas,
interruptions in fuel supply infrastructure and relative levels
of hydroelectric capacity can increase seasonal fuel and power
price volatility. We derive a majority of our annual revenues in
the months of May through September, when demand for electricity
is the highest in our North American markets. Further, power
price volatility is generally higher in the summer months due to
the effect of temperature variations. Our second most important
season is winter when volatility and price spikes in underlying
fuel prices have tended to drive seasonal electricity prices.
Issues related to seasonality and price volatility are fairly
uniform across our business segments.
16
Sources and Availability of Raw Materials
Our raw material requirements primarily include various forms of
fossil fuel, including oil, natural gas and coal. We obtain our
oil, natural gas and coal from multiple suppliers and
transportation sources and availability is generally not an
issue, although localized shortages, transportation availability
and supplier financial stability issues can and do occur. The
prices of oil, natural gas and coal are subject to macro- and
micro-economic forces that can change dramatically in both the
short-term and the long-term. For example, the price of natural
gas was particularly volatile in late 2005 due to infrastructure
damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally,
throughout 2005, oil prices were extremely volatile due to
hurricane damage, geo-political uncertainty in the Middle East
and increased global oil demand. Issues related to the sources
and availability of raw materials are fairly uniform across our
business segments.
Plant Operations
We provide overall support services to our generation facilities
to ensure that high-level performance goals are developed, best
practices are shared and resources are appropriately balanced
and allocated to get the best results for us. Performance goals
are set for equivalent forced outage rates, or EFOR,
availability, procurement costs, operating costs and safety.
The functional areas included in this organization include
safety and security, engineering, project management,
construction services, and purchasing. These services also
include overall facilities management, operations strategic
planning and the development and dissemination of consistent
policies and practices relating to plant operations.
Environmental Controls
Between 2002 and 2007, NRG has made, and will continue to make,
investments that we believe will total approximately
$125 million in its coal-fired plants in the Northeast
region of the United States so that they can burn low sulfur
coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. These
improvements have not only led to significant reductions in
sulfur dioxide emissions, but have also improved the operational
flexibility and financial performance of these plants. During
the same period, NRG expects to invest approximately
$32 million in its coal plants in the South Central region
for
NOx
burners and over fired air, which have led to reductions in
NOx.
A significant portion of this investment may be recovered from
NRGs cooperative customers. Texas Genco and its
predecessors invested over $700 million in
NOx
reduction initiatives since 1999 to ensure both regulatory
compliance and continued performance, and we estimate we will
invest approximately $70 million in additional capital
expenditures in these assets to meet pollution control
requirements from 2006 to 2014.
17
The following table summarizes the key existing and current
forecasted plans as to environmental controls on our coal-fired
units. Also see our discussion on Environmental Matters further
within this Business Section:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO2 | |
|
NOx | |
|
Hg | |
|
Particulate | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Control | |
|
Install | |
|
Control | |
|
Install | |
|
Control | |
|
Install | |
|
Control | |
|
Install | |
Units |
|
Equipment | |
|
Date | |
|
Equipment | |
|
Date | |
|
Equipment | |
|
Date | |
|
Equipment | |
|
Date | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Huntley 67
|
|
|
Wet FGD(1) |
|
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
SNCR |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
FF-ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1973 |
|
Huntley 68
|
|
|
Wet FGD(1) |
|
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
SNCR |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
FF-ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1973 |
|
Dunkirk 1
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNCR |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
FF-ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1974 |
|
Dunkirk 2
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNCR |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
FF-ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1974 |
|
Dunkirk 3
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNCR |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
FF-ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1975 |
|
Dunkirk 4
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNCR |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
FF-ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1976 |
|
Indian River 1
|
|
|
In-Duct Scrubber |
|
|
|
2012 |
|
|
|
SNCR & LNB (3) |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Co-Benefit of Scrubbers |
|
|
|
2012 |
|
|
|
ESP (IR1-3) |
|
|
|
1976 |
|
Indian River 2
|
|
|
In-Duct Scrubber |
|
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
SNCR & LNB (3) |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Co-Benefit of Scrubbers |
|
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
ESP (IR1-3) |
|
|
|
1976 |
|
Indian River 3
|
|
|
In-Duct Scrubber |
|
|
|
2012 |
|
|
|
LNB(3) & SNCR |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Co-Benefit of Scrubbers |
|
|
|
2012 |
|
|
|
ESP (IR1-3) |
|
|
|
1980 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
upgrade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indian River 4
|
|
|
Dry Scrubber |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
LNB(3) & SNCR |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Co-Benefit of Scrubbers |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
ESP (IR1-3) |
|
|
|
1980 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
upgrade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Cajun II 1
|
|
|
Dry Scrubber |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2012 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1981 |
|
Big Cajun II 2
|
|
|
Dry Scrubber |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
SCR(4) |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1981 |
|
Big Cajun II 3
|
|
|
Dry Scrubber |
|
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
SCR(4) |
|
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
ACI(2) |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1983 |
|
Limestone
|
|
|
FGD |
|
|
|
1986-87 |
|
|
|
LNB/OFA(3) |
|
|
|
2000-01 |
|
|
|
Co-Benefit of Scrubbers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESP |
|
|
|
1986-87 |
|
WA Parish 5,6,7
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
SCR & LNB/OFA (3) |
|
|
|
2000-04 |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FF |
|
|
|
1988 |
|
WA Parish 8
|
|
|
FGD |
|
|
|
1982 |
|
|
|
SCR & LNB/OFA (3) |
|
|
|
2000-04 |
|
|
|
Co-Benefit of Scrubber |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FF |
|
|
|
1988 |
|
|
|
(1) |
FGD stands for Flue Gas Desulfurization |
|
(2) |
FF-ACI stands for Fabric Filter with Activated Carbon Injection |
|
(3) |
LNB/ OFA stands for Low
NOx
Burner with Over Fire Air |
|
(4) |
SCR stands for Selective Catalytic Reduction |
Performance Improvement and Cost and Process Control
Initiatives
In May 2005, NRG announced FORNRG, a comprehensive cost and
margin improvement program, consisting of a large number of
asset, portfolio and headquarters-specific targeted initiatives.
This effort has been branded as FORNRG, or Focus on
ROIC@NRG. Projects are focused on improving plant performance,
reducing purchasing and other costs and streamlining processes.
A large number of initiatives are currently underway in plant
operations including forced outage reductions and heat rate
improvements at NRGs major base load facilities.
Additional initiatives are underway at our regional and
headquarter offices as well. The ultimate objective is to
produce $100 million of recurring benefits by 2008.
There have been a number of parallel improvement programs
underway at Texas Genco, which have focused on streamlining
processes, right sizing the organization and running efficient
operations. As part of the integration of Texas Genco into NRG,
we are comparing best practices and results between NRG and
Texas Genco, and we are combining purchasing programs and
incorporating Texas Genco processes under the FORNRG
program.
Regional Business Descriptions
The combined company is organized into business units as
described below, with each of our core regions operating as a
separate unit.
NRGs largest business unit is located in the Texas
(ERCOT) region of the United States and is comprised of
investments in generation facilities located in the physical
control areas of the ERCOT-ISO. These assets were acquired on
February 2, 2006 as part of the Texas Genco Acquisition.
18
Operating Strategy
Our business in the ERCOT region is comprised of two fundamental
sets of assets: a regionally diverse set of three large
solid-fuel baseload plants and a set of generally older
gas-fired plants located in and around Houston. Our operating
strategy to maximize value and opportunity across these two sets
of assets is four pronged: (1) to ensure the availability
of the baseload plants to fulfill their commercial obligations
under long-term forward sales contracts already in place,
(2) to manage the gas assets for profitability while
ensuring the reliability and flexibility of power supply to the
Houston market, (3) to take advantage of our skill sets and
market/regulatory knowledge to grow the business through
incremental capacity uprates and brownfield development of
solid-fuel baseload units and (4) to play a leading role in
the development of the ERCOT market by active membership and
participation in market and regulatory issues.
It is our strategy to sell forward up to 80% of our solid-fuel
baseload capacity in ERCOT under long-term contracts.
Accordingly, our primary focus will be to keep these solid-fuel
baseload units running efficiently. The generation performance
by fuel type for the recent three-year period is as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Generation (MWh) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In thousands) | |
Coal
|
|
|
31,299 |
|
|
|
31,222 |
|
|
|
29,754 |
|
Gas
|
|
|
6,806 |
|
|
|
7,701 |
|
|
|
10,701 |
|
Nuclear
|
|
|
6,412 |
|
|
|
6,580 |
|
|
|
4,843 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
44,517 |
|
|
|
45,503 |
|
|
|
45,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the gas-fired asset side, we will continue a dual path of
contracting forward a significant portion of gas-fired capacity
one to two years out while holding a portion for
back-up in case there
is an operational issue with one of the baseload units. For the
gas-fired capacity sold forward, we offer a range of products
including virtual units where the customer has the
right to dispatch capacity as the customer needs in order to
meet their physical load requirements. For the gas-fired
capacity that we will continue to sell commercially into the
market, we will focus on making this capacity available to the
market whenever it is economic to run.
Texas Gencos growth efforts to date have been focused on
adding incremental capacity to existing units such
as the 99 MW uprate at Limestone 2 in the spring of 2006.
We will continue this effort with exploration of some additional
potential opportunities at W. A. Parish as well as some
scheduled uprates at STP. We have also launched a broader
brownfield development initiative where we will evaluate
opportunities to take advantage of our current power plant sites
and other land we own as well as our deep market, regulatory,
and environmental knowledge to consider the development of new
solid fuel baseload units.
19
Facilities
The following table describes Texas Gencos electric power
generation plants and generation capacity as of
December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Generation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
|
Generation Sites |
|
Location | |
|
% Owned | |
|
(MW)(1) | |
|
Primary Fuel Type(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Solid Fuel Baseload Units:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A.
Parish(3)
|
|
|
Thompsons, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
2,463 |
|
|
Low Sulfur Coal Lignite/Low Sulfur |
Limestone
|
|
|
Jewett, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
1,614 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
South Texas
Project(4)
|
|
|
Bay City, TX |
|
|
|
44 |
% |
|
|
1,101 |
|
|
|
Nuclear |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Solid Fuel Baseload
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Natural Gas-Fired Units:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cedar Bayou
|
|
|
Chambers County, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
1,498 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
T. H. Wharton
|
|
|
Houston, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
1,025 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
W. A. Parish (Natural
gas)(3)
|
|
|
Thompsons, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
1,191 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
S. R. Bertron
|
|
|
Deer Park, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
844 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Greens Bayou
|
|
|
Houston, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
760 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
San Jacinto
|
|
|
LaPorte, TX |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Natural Gas-Fired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Texas (ERCOT) Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,658 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Actual capacity can vary depending on factors including weather
conditions, operational conditions and other factors. ERCOT
requires periodic demonstration of capability, and the capacity
may vary individually and in the aggregate from time to time.
Excludes 3,378 MW of inactive capacity available for
redevelopment of which 174 MW of available capacity was
sold on November 14, 2005. An additional 461 MW was
moved to inactive status as of December 31, 2005. |
|
(2) |
Low sulfur coal is coal mined from the Powder River Basin, a
coal-producing area in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern
Montana, which coal has low sulfur content relative to most coal
from the eastern United States. |
|
(3) |
W. A. Parish has nine units, four of which are baseload
coal-fired units and five of which are natural gas-fired units. |
|
(4) |
Generation capacity figure consists of our 44.0% undivided
interest in the two units of STP. |
W.A. Parish. The W. A. Parish plant is one of the largest
fossil-fired plants in the United States based on total MWs of
generation capacity. The plant is located in the Houston ERCOT
zone and was recognized by Platts Power Magazine as one of
the top power plants in the United States for 2004. This
plants power generation units include four coal-fired
steam generation units with an aggregate generation capacity of
2,463 MW as of December 31, 2005. Two of these units
are 649 MW steam units that were placed in commercial
service in December 1977 and December 1978, respectively. The
other two units are 555 MW and 610 MW steam units that
were placed in commercial service in June 1980 and December
1982, respectively. All four units are serviced by two competing
railroads that diversify Texas Gencos coal transportation
options at competitive prices. Texas Genco invested
approximately $430 million in nitrogen oxide, or
NOx,
control systems from 1999 to 2004. Each of the four coal-fired
units has low-
NOx
burners and selective catalytic reduction, or SCR, installed to
reduce
NOx
emissions. In addition, W. A. Parish Unit 8 has a scrubber
installed to reduce sulfur dioxide, or
SO2,
emissions. Plant efficiency projects to be completed by year end
2007 are expected to uprate the net generation capacity of W.A.
Parish by 31 MW.
Limestone. The Limestone plant is a lignite and
coal-fired plant located approximately 140 miles northwest
of Houston. This plant includes two steam generation units with
an aggregate generation capacity of 1,614 MW as of
December 31, 2005. The first unit is an 836 MW steam
unit that was placed in commercial service in December 1985. The
second unit is a 778 MW steam unit that was placed in
commercial service in December 1986. Limestone primarily burns
lignite from an on-site
mine, but also burns low sulfur coal and petroleum coke. This
serves to lower average fuel costs by eliminating fuel
transportation costs, which can
20
represent up to two-thirds of delivered fuel costs for plants of
this type. We own the mining equipment and facilities and a
portion of the lignite reserves located at the mine. Mining
operations are conducted by Texas Westmoreland Coal Co., a
single purpose, wholly-owned subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal
Company and the owner of a substantial portion of the remaining
lignite reserves. Both units have installed low-
NOx
burners to reduce
NOx
emissions and scrubbers to reduce
SO2
emissions. In the second quarter of 2006 we plan to replace the
high pressure and intermediate pressure turbines at Limestone
Unit 2, rewinding the generator and replacing the main
generator step-up
transformer. This work is expected to cost approximately
$33 million and to improve generation capacity by
99 MW.
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station. STP is
one of the newest and largest nuclear-powered generation plants
in the United States based on total megawatts of generation
capacity. This plant is located approximately 90 miles
south of downtown Houston, near Bay City, Texas and consists of
two generation units each representing approximately
1,250 MW of generation capacity. Plant efficiency projects
to be completed by 2007 are expected to uprate the net
generation capacity of STP by 73 MW (32 MW net to
NRG). STPs two generation units commenced operations in
August 1988 and June 1989, respectively. For the year ended
December 31, 2004, STP had a forced outage rate of 0.4% and
a 97% capacity factor.
STP is currently owned as a tenancy in common among NRG and two
other co-owners. NRG owns a 44.0% (1,101 MW) interest in
STP, the City of San Antonio owns a 40% interest and the
City of Austin owns the remaining 16% interest. Each co-owner
retains its undivided ownership interest in the two
nuclear-fueled generation units and the electrical output from
those units. In the event any owner desires to sell all or part
of its ownership interest in STP, such sale is subject to a
right of first refusal in favor of the other owners. Except for
certain plant shutdown and decommissioning costs and NRC
licensing liabilities, NRG is severally liable, but not jointly
liable, for the expenses and liabilities of STP. The original
co-owners of STP organized South Texas Project Nuclear Operating
Company, or STPNOC, to operate and maintain STP. STPNOC is
managed by a board of directors composed of one director
appointed by each of the three co-owners, along with the chief
executive officer of STPNOC. STPNOC is the NRC-licensed operator
of STP. No single owner controls STPNOC and all decisions must
be approved by two or more owners who collectively control more
than 60% of the interests. Due to the fact that NRG owns 44% of
STP, NRG effectively holds a veto right.
In connection with the acquisition by Texas Genco of 13.2% of
STP from AEP, Texas Genco, LP agreed with AEP that, for a period
of ten years from May 19, 2005, Texas Genco, LP would
maintain a minimum partners equity, determined in
accordance with GAAP, of $300 million. This obligation
remains in effect as an obligation of NRG.
The two STP generation units operate under licenses granted by
the NRC that expire in 2027 and 2028, respectively. These
licenses may be extended for additional
20-year terms if the
project satisfies NRC requirements. Adequate provisions exist
for long-term on-site
storage of spent nuclear fuel throughout the remaining life of
the existing STP plant licenses.
Market Framework
The ERCOT market is one of the nations largest and fastest
growing power markets. It represents approximately 85% of the
demand for power in Texas and covers the whole state, with the
exception of the far west (El Paso), a large part of the
Texas Panhandle and two small areas in the eastern part of the
state. From 1994 through 2004, peak hourly demand in the ERCOT
market grew at a compound annual rate of 3.0%, compared to a
compound annual rate of growth of 2.1% in the United States for
the same period. For 2004, hourly demand ranged from a low of
20,276 MW to a high of 58,506 MW. ERCOT has limited
interconnections currently limited to 856 MW of
generation capacity to other markets in the
United States, and wholesale transactions within ERCOT are
not subject to regulation by FERC. Any wholesale producer of
power that qualifies as a power generation company under the
Texas electric restructuring law and that can access the ERCOT
electric power grid is allowed to sell power in the ERCOT market
at unregulated rates.
The ERCOT market has experienced significant construction of new
generation plants in recent years, with over 20,000 MW of
mostly natural gas-fired combined cycle generation capacity
added to the market
21
since 2000. As of December 31, 2005, aggregate net
generation capacity of approximately 81,000 MW existed in
the ERCOT market, of which 73% was natural gas-fired.
Approximately 20,000 MW, or 25%, was lower marginal cost
generation capacity such as coal, lignite and nuclear plants.
NRGs coal and nuclear fuel baseload plants represent
approximately 5,178 MW, or 26%, of the total solid fuel
baseload net generation capacity in the ERCOT market. ERCOT has
established a target equilibrium reserve margin level of
approximately 12.5%; the reserve margin as of the latest known
information on December 31, 2005 was 16.9%. Construction of
new generation plants has been minimal since 2004, and we expect
that reserve margins will decrease as demand gradually grows and
surpasses recently added supply.
In the ERCOT market, buyers and sellers enter into bilateral
wholesale capacity, power and ancillary services contracts or
may participate in the centralized ancillary services market,
including balancing energy, which ERCOT administers. In the
ERCOT market, a 2004 report by Henwood found that natural
gas-fired plants have set the market price of wholesale power
more than 90% of the time. As a result, NRGs lower
marginal cost solid-fuel baseload plants are expected to
generate power nearly 100% of the time they are available.
The ERCOT market is divided into five regions or congestion
zones (Northeast, North, Houston, South and West), which reflect
transmission constraints that limit the amount of power that can
flow across zones. NRGs W. A. Parish plant and all its
natural gas-fired plants are located in the Houston zone,
NRGs Limestone plant is located in the North zone and STP
is located in the South zone.
The ERCOT market operates under the reliability standards set by
the North American Electric Reliability Council, or NERC. The
PUCT has primary jurisdiction over the ERCOT market to ensure
the adequacy and reliability of power supply across Texas
main interconnected power transmission grid. ERCOT is
responsible for facilitating reliable operations of the bulk
electric power supply system in the ERCOT market. Its
responsibilities include ensuring that power production and
delivery are accurately accounted for among the generation
resources and wholesale buyers and sellers. Unlike power pools
with independent operators in other regions of the country, the
ERCOT market is not a centrally dispatched power pool and ERCOT
does not procure power on behalf of its members other than to
maintain the reliable operations of the transmission system. The
ERCOT-ISO also serves as agent for procuring ancillary services
for those who elect not to provide their own ancillary services.
Power sales or purchases from one location to another may be
constrained by the power transfer capability between locations.
Under current ERCOT protocol, the commercially significant
constraints and the transfer capabilities along these paths are
reassessed every year and congestion costs are directly assigned
to those parties causing the congestion. This has the potential
to increase power generators exposure to the congestion
costs associated with transferring power between zones.
The PUCT has adopted a rule directing the ERCOT-ISO to develop
and implement a wholesale market design that, among other
things, includes a day ahead energy market and replaces the
existing zonal wholesale market design with a nodal market
design that is based on locational marginal prices for power.
See Regulatory Developments
Regional Businesses Market Developments
Texas (ERCOT) Region. One of the stated purposes
of the proposed market restructuring is to reduce local
(intra-zonal) transmission congestion costs. The market redesign
project is expected to take effect in 2009. We expect that
implementation of any new market design will require
modifications to our procedures and systems. Although we do not
expect the combined companys competitive position in the
ERCOT market will be materially adversely affected by the
proposed market restructuring, we do not know for certain how
the planned market restructuring will affect our revenues, and
some of the combined companys plants in ERCOT may
experience adverse pricing effects due to their location on the
transmission grid.
PUCT Mandated Auctions
PUCT regulation required firm entitlements to 15% of NRGs
operating installed generation capacity to be sold at auction
through December 31, 2006, at opening bid prices well below
NRGs cost for 2006. On December 7, 2005, Texas Genco
filed an application with the PUCT requesting the PUCT to
determine that we were no longer required to conduct mandated
auctions because 40% or more of the electric power
22
consumed by the residential and small commercial customers
within the CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC certificated
service area before the onset of customer choice is now provided
by nonaffiliated retail electric providers. On February 6,
2006, the Staff of the PUCT reported that ERCOT had performed
the analysis and calculations necessary to demonstrate that we
have satisfied the 40% threshold. The Staff recommended that the
petition be granted and that we be released from any further
capacity auction requirements. The administrative law judge
issued her proposal for decision, and a decision by the PUCT is
expected in March.
NRGs second largest asset base is located in the Northeast
region of the United States and is comprised of investments in
generation facilities primarily located in the physical control
areas of NYISO, the ISO-NE and PJM.
Operating Strategy
The Northeast region strategy is focused on optimizing the value
of our broad and varied generation portfolio in three
interconnected and actively traded competitive markets: the
NYISO, the ISO-NE and the PJM. In our Northeast markets, load
serving entities generally lack their own generation capacity,
much of the generation base is aging, and the current ownership
of the generation is highly disaggregated. Thus, commodity
prices are more volatile on an as-delivered basis than in other
regions due to the distances and occasional physical constraints
impacting delivery of fuels into the region. In this
environment, we seek both to enhance our ability to be the low
cost wholesale generator capable of delivering wholesale power
to load centers within the region from multiple locations using
multiple fuel sources, and to be properly compensated for
delivering such wholesale power and related services. The
generation performance by fuel type for the recent three-year
period is as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Generation (MWh) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In thousands) | |
Coal
|
|
|
10,369 |
|
|
|
10,664 |
|
|
|
9,783 |
|
Oil
|
|
|
3,158 |
|
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
1,471 |
|
Gas
|
|
|
1,724 |
|
|
|
1,160 |
|
|
|
1,172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
15,251 |
|
|
|
13,205 |
|
|
|
12,426 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several of our Connecticut assets are located in
transmission-constrained load pockets and have been designated
as required to be available to ISO-NE to ensure reliability.
These assets are subject to reliability must-run, or RMR,
agreements, which are contracts under which we agree to maintain
our facilities to be available to run when needed, and are paid
for providing these capability services based on our costs. We
are focused on capturing the locational value of our plants that
are located in or near load centers and inside chronic
transmission constraints, in order to improve the economic
rationale for repowering of those sites. We do this principally
through the advocacy of capacity market reforms, e.g.,
locational installed capacity markets that generate adequate
returns for wholesale power generators.
We continue to evaluate opportunities to redevelop our existing
sites as well as opportunities for acquisitions in the Northeast
region. The redevelopment opportunities for our existing sites
include expanding sites with high efficiency, intermediate and
peaking units, converting coal or oil sites to cleaner
technologies, redeveloping existing sites with projects using
IGCC technology, as well as reconfiguring the existing sites to
burn renewable fuel sources. Redevelopment opportunities have
been identified for each site in the Northeast and we have
established priorities based on expected financial returns and
probability of success. To facilitate redevelopment
opportunities, we are pursuing contractual arrangements to
support significant redevelopment capital expenditures via
direct negotiations with relevant agencies and potential power
purchasers as well as through request for proposal processes. We
also continue to pursue contractual arrangements to support the
23
construction costs of potential new facilities and acquisition
opportunities through public auction processes as well as by
initiating discussions with various parties on potential
opportunities.
Facilities
As of December 31, 2005, NRGs facilities in the
Northeast region consisted of approximately 7,099 MW of
generation capacity, including assets located in transmission
constrained areas, such as in-city New York City (1,394 MW)
and southwest Connecticut (538 MW). The Northeast region
power generation assets are summarized in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
|
Plant |
|
Location | |
|
% Owned | |
|
(MW)* | |
|
Primary Fuel Type | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Oswego
|
|
|
Oswego, NY |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
1,634 |
|
|
|
Oil |
|
Arthur Kill
|
|
|
Staten Island, NY |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
841 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Middletown
|
|
|
Middletown, CT |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
770 |
|
|
|
Oil |
|
Indian River
|
|
|
Millsboro, DE |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
737 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Astoria Gas Turbines
|
|
|
Queens, NY |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
553 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Dunkirk
|
|
|
Dunkirk, NY |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
522 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Huntley
|
|
|
Tonawanda, NY |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
552 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Montville
|
|
|
Uncasville, CT |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
497 |
|
|
|
Oil |
|
Norwalk Harbor
|
|
|
So. Norwalk, CT |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
Oil |
|
Devon
|
|
|
Milford, CT |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Vienna
|
|
|
Vienna, MD |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
Oil |
|
Somerset Power
|
|
|
Somerset, MA |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Connecticut Remote Turbines
|
|
|
Various locations in CT |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
Oil |
|
Conemaugh
|
|
|
New Florence, PA |
|
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Keystone
|
|
|
Shelocta, PA |
|
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Northeast Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,099 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Excludes 382 MW of inactive capacity. |
The following are descriptions of our most significant
revenue generating plants in the Northeast region:
Arthur Kill. NRGs Arthur Kill plant is a natural
gas-fired power plant consisting of three units and is located
on the west side of Staten Island, New York. The plant produces
an aggregate generation capacity of 841 MW from two
intermediate load units (Units 20 and 30) and one peak load
unit (Unit GT-1). Unit 20 produces an aggregate generation
capacity of 335 MW and was installed in 1959. Unit 30
produces an aggregate generation capacity of 491 MW and was
installed in 1969, and both Units were converted from steam
engines in the early 1990s. We may need to upgrade the plant in
the future to comply with environmental regulations. If upgrades
are needed it could cost several million dollars.
Astoria Gas Turbines. Adjacent to LaGuardia airport in
Queens, New York, Astoria provides power to the local New York
City load pockets. The facility has an aggregate generation
capacity of 553 MW from 19 operational combustion
turbine engines. The turbine engines are peak gas-fired and/or
oil-fired installed in the early 1970s. The engines are
classified into three classes, which are then grouped into ten
Astoria Gas Turbine units. These units consist of
Buildings 2, 3 and 4, which have a total net
generation capacity of 431 MW and will be retired in 2022.
Units 5, 7 and 8, which are Class 2 turbine
engines, have a net generation capacity totaling approximately
42 MW; and will be retired in 2015. Units 10, 11, 12
and 13, which are Class 3 turbine engines have a total
net generation capacity of 80 MW, will be retired in 2015
as well.
24
Dunkirk. NRGs Dunkirk plant is a coal-fired plant
located on Lake Erie in Dunkirk, New York. This plant produces
an aggregate generation capacity of 522 MW from four
baseload units. Units 1 and 2 produce up to 81 MW each and
were put in service in 1950. Units 3 and 4 produce approximately
180 MW each and were put in service in 1959 and 1960,
respectively. The plant is currently implementing changes to
switch from eastern bituminous coal to low sulfur PRB coal in
order to comply with various federal and state emissions
standards, as well as the NYSDEC settlement referred to in the
following paragraph. The conversion will be completed for all
units by Spring 2006.
Huntley. NRGs Huntley plant is a coal-fired plant
consisting of six units and is located in Tonawanda, New York,
approximately three miles north of Buffalo. The plant has a
generation capacity of 552 MW from two intermediate load
units (Units 65 and 66) and two baseload units (Units 67 and
68). Units 67 and 68 generate a net capacity of approximately
190 MW each and were put in service in 1957 and 1958,
respectively. Units 65 and 66 generate a net capacity of
86 MW each and were put in service between 1942 and 1954.
Units 63 and 64 are currently inactive. At the end of 2005, NRG
gave notice to the New York Public Service Commission, or NYPSC,
of its intent to retire Units 63 and 64 in early 2006, subject
to NYPSC approval. As part of a settlement reached with the New
York Department of Environmental Conservation, or NYSDEC, in
January 2005, NRG will reduce NOx and SOx emissions from its
Huntley and Dunkirk plants through 2013 in the aggregate by over
80% and 86%, respectively. A portion of these reductions has
been achieved through the switch to PRB coal and related
projects completed at the plant that have already been expended
or committed to.
Market Framework
Although each of the three northeast ISOs and their respective
energy markets are functionally, administratively and
operationally independent, they all follow, to a certain extent,
similar market designs. Each ISO dispatches power plants to meet
system energy and reliability needs, and settles physical power
deliveries at locational marginal prices, or LMPs, which reflect
the value of energy at a specific location at the specific time
it is delivered. This value is determined by an ISO-administered
auction process, which evaluates and selects the least costly
supplier offers or bids to create a reliable and least-cost
dispatch. The ISO-sponsored LMP energy markets consist of two
separate and characteristically distinct settlement time frames.
The first is a security-constrained, financially firm, day-ahead
unit commitment market. The second is a security-constrained,
financially settled, real-time dispatch and balancing market.
Prices paid in these LMP energy markets, however, are affected
by, among other things, market mitigation measures which can
result in lower prices associated with certain generating units
that are mitigated because they are deemed to have locational
market power, and by $1000/ MWh energy market price caps that
are in place in all three northeast ISOs.
In addition to energy delivery, the ISOs manage secondary
markets for installed capacity, ancillary services and financial
transmission rights. All of the three northeastern ISOs have
realized, however, that they are not capable of supporting
needed investment in new generation without well designed
capacity and ancillary service markets. NYISOs capacity
market was the first to receive approval of its proposed demand
curve and locational capacity reforms (which are intended to
better reflect locational values of capacity resources). ISO-NE
and PJM have both proposed their respective versions of reformed
capacity markets, namely, a locational installed capacity
market, or LICAP in ISO-NE, and a reliability pricing model, or
RPM proposal in PJM. These proposals are currently pending
before FERC. Also see further discussion in
Item 15 Note 26 Regulatory Matters.
As of December 31, 2005, NRG owned approximately
2,395 MW of generating capacity in the South Central region
of the United States. The region lacks an ISO and, therefore,
remains a bilateral market, making it less transparent than a
region with an ISO-administered energy market using large scale
economic dispatch (such as the Northeast markets discussed
above). Our plants in the South Central region operate as their
own control area, the South Central control area. As a result,
the South Central control area is capable of providing control
area services, in addition to wholesale power, that enables NRG
to provide full requirement
25
services to load serving utilities, thus making the South
Central control area a competitive alternative to the integrated
utilities operating in the region.
Operating Strategy
Our South Central region seeks to capitalize on two factors: our
position as a significant coal-fired generator in a market which
is highly dependent on natural gas for power generation
purposes; and our long-term contractual and historical service
relationship with 11 rural cooperatives around Louisiana. We are
working with our cooperative customers to improve contract
administration, to expand their and our customer base on terms
advantageous to all parties and, in some cases, to modify the
terms of our contracts with respect to our current or new
customers.
The generation performance by fuel type for the recent
three-year period is as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Generation (MWh) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In thousands) | |
Coal
|
|
|
10,103 |
|
|
|
10,469 |
|
|
|
10,318 |
|
Gas
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
10,117 |
|
|
|
10,471 |
|
|
|
10,345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As part of our strategy, we are examining all of our sites in
the South Central region for possible brownfield development. In
particular, we continue the development of the new 675 MW
Big Cajun II Unit 4 super critical coal-fired generating
unit. On August 22, 2005, NRG received the Title V Air
Permit from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
On October 14, 2005, Washington Group International was
selected as the owners engineer. We continue to
aggressively pursue equity partners and off-takers for the
output of the unit. We continue to look for opportunities to
acquire assets that will enhance our portfolio and long-term
strategic goals.
Facilities
NRGs generating assets in the South Central region consist
primarily of its net ownership of power generation facilities in
New Roads, Louisiana, which we refer to as Big Cajun II,
and also includes the Sterlington, Bayou Cove and Big Cajun
peaking facilities. NRGs power generation assets in the
South Central region as of December 31, 2005 are summarized
in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generating | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
Primary Fuel |
Plant |
|
Location | |
|
% Owned | |
|
(MW) | |
|
Type |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Big
Cajun II(1)
|
|
|
New Roads, LA |
|
|
|
86.0 |
% |
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
Coal |
Bayou Cove
|
|
|
Jennings, LA |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
300 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Big Cajun I (Peakers) Units 3 & 4
|
|
|
New Roads, LA |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
210 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Big Cajun I Units 1 & 2
|
|
|
New Roads, LA |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
220 |
|
|
Natural Gas/Oil |
Sterlington
|
|
|
Sterlington, LA |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
176 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total South Central
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
NRG owns 100% of Units 1 & 2; 58% of Unit 3 |
Big Cajun II. Our most significant revenue
generating plant in the South Central region is the Big
Cajun II facility. Big Cajun II plant is a coal-fired,
sub-critical heat baseload plant located along the banks of the
Mississippi River, upstream from Baton Rouge. This plant
includes three coal-fired generation units (Units 1, 2 and
3) with an aggregate generation capacity of 1,730 MW
as of December 31, 2005, and generation capacity per unit
of 580 MW, 575 MW and 575 MW, respectively. The
plant uses coal supplied by the Powder River Basin and was
commissioned between 1981 and 1983. NRG owns 100% of Units 1 and
2 and 58% of Unit 3 for an aggregate owned capacity of
1,489 MW (86.0%) of the plant. All three units have
26
been upgraded with low NOx burners and over fire air. The Unit 1
generator has recently been rewound and was optimized with a
modern turbine/exciter control system. Units 2 and 3 are planned
for generator rewinds, turbine/exciter control replacements and
additional neural net systems in future years. These efficiency
improvements are expected to cost approximately $30 million.
Market Framework
NRGs assets in the South Central region are located within
the franchise territories of vertically integrated utilities,
primarily Entergy Corp., or Entergy. Entergy performs the
scheduling, reserve and reliability functions that are
administered by the ISOs in certain other regions of the United
States and Canada. Although the reliability functions performed
are essentially the same, the primary differences between these
markets lie in the physical delivery and price discovery
mechanisms. In the South Central region, all power sales and
purchases are consummated bilaterally between individual
counterparties. Transacting counterparties are required to
reserve and purchase transmission services from the relevant
transmission owners at their FERC-approved tariff rates.
Included with these transmission services are the reserve and
ancillary costs.
As of December 31, 2005, NRG had long-term all-requirements
contracts with 11 Louisiana distribution cooperatives. The
agreements are standardized into three types, Forms A, B
and C and have the terms, contract loads and customers as shown
in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated | |
|
|
|
|
Expiration | |
|
Contract Load | |
|
Customers | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Form A
|
|
|
March 2025 |
|
|
|
42 |
% |
|
|
6 |
|
Form B
|
|
|
March 2025 |
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
1 |
|
Form C
|
|
|
March 2009-2014 |
|
|
|
42 |
% |
|
|
4 |
|
NRG also has long-term contracts with the Municipal Agency of
Mississippi, South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and
Southwestern Electric Power Company, which collectively comprise
an additional 13% of contract load.
At peak demand periods, NRGs Big Cajun II assets are
insufficient to serve the requirements of the customers under
these contracts, and at such times, NRG typically purchases
power from other power producers in the region, frequently at
higher prices than can be recovered under our contracts. As the
loads of our customers grow, we can expect this imbalance to
worsen, unless we are successful in renegotiating the terms of
our long-term contracts.
We are currently in negotiations with these customers to achieve
contractual amendments that limit incremental load growth at
contract rates for large industrial and municipal loads. To
date, we have been successful in achieving such amendments with
two of the eleven cooperative contracts.
As a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and
September 2005, NRG recognized a loss of approximately
$1.3 million for damaged assets. Four of the South Central
regions 11 cooperative customers suffered extensive losses
to their distribution systems, and the region suffered a drop in
contract sales during the ensuing power outages. By year-end,
loads have largely returned to normal for three of the four
hard-hit cooperatives, while the fourth cooperative continues to
face challenges in rebuilding. The load loss and the
transmission constraints had offsetting impacts on the South
Central regions margins resulting in gross margins that
were $4 million below expectations. In addition, NRG
created a reserve for a receivable from Entergy New Orleans of
$1.9 million because of its hurricane-related bankruptcy.
As of December 31, 2005, NRG owned approximately
1,044 MW of generating capacity in the Western region of
the United States (California), of which approximately
904 MW is through a 50% interest in WCP Holdings. On
December 27, 2005, NRG entered into a purchase and sale
agreement to acquire Dynegys 50% ownership interest in
West Coast Power to become the sole owner of power plants
totaling approximately
27
1,800 MW of generation capacity in the Western region. The
transaction, which is subject to regulatory approval, is
expected to close in the first quarter of 2006.
Operating Strategy
Our Western region strategy is focused on maximizing the cash
flow and value associated with our generating plants while
protecting and potentially realizing the commercial value of the
underlying real estate in case our following initiatives do not
generate value. There are three principal components to this
strategy. First, we are focused on influencing market reforms in
California to provide an energy market environment where our
capacity can be offered into centrally administered competitive
auctions, such as we see in the Northeast, and also provide for
the negotiation of bilateral transactions for both energy and
capacity. Second, we are preparing our sites for the
construction of new capacity to meet increasing local area
requirements. At El Segundo, NRG has a California Energy
Commission, or CEC, permit to construct a new combined cycle
plant to replace the retired units at the site. At the Long
Beach site, NRG has land available to construct new peaking
capacity. NRG is developing plans for site remediation and
preparation in anticipation of a new request for new capacity
from load serving entities. Third, we are engaged in the
identification of collaborative value enhancing projects with
communities and businesses located near our plants. West Coast
Powers plants are, for example, considered excellent
candidates for the co-location of desalination plants. In case
the said initiatives fail, we are taking active steps to assess
the value of our property for non-power generation purposes. The
real estate value from our plant locations is promising as two
of West Coast Powers plants are situated at choice
locations on the Pacific coast.
NRGs assets in the Western region include three additional
power plants, Red Bluff and Chowchilla (94 MW total),
located in northern California that have some locational value
and one plant in Henderson, Nevada (Saguaro), that is contracted
to Nevada Power and two steam hosts. NRG has entered into a
resource adequacy agreement with PG&E Corporation, or
PG&E, for the capacity of the Red Bluff and Chowchilla units
that expires December 31, 2007. The Saguaro plant in Nevada
is contracted to Nevada Power through 2022, one steam host
(Pioneer) whose contract expires in 2007 (with a negotiated
renewal) and a steam off taker (Ocean Spray), whose contract
runs through 2015. The Saguaro plant had a long-term gas supply
agreement that expired in July 2005 and the plant is now exposed
to the monthly spot gas market. At present, Saguaro cannot pass
higher natural gas costs through to its customers, and the plant
is currently experiencing negative cash flows. Consequently,
during 2005, we wrote down our equity investment in Saguaro by
approximately $27 million. NRG is currently researching a
number of alternatives for its investment in Saguaro.
28
Facilities
NRGs power generation assets in the Western region as of
December 31, 2005 are summarized in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
Primary Fuel | |
Plant |
|
Location | |
|
% Owned | |
|
(MW) | |
|
Type | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
WCP(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encina
|
|
|
Carlsbad, CA |
|
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
483 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
El Segundo
|
|
|
El Segundo, CA |
|
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Cabrillo II
|
|
|
San Diego, CA |
|
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total WCP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
904 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Western Region Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saguaro
|
|
|
Henderson, NV |
|
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Chowchilla
|
|
|
Northern CA |
|
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Red Bluff
|
|
|
Northern CA |
|
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Western Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
On December 27, 2005, NRG entered into a purchase and sale
agreement to acquire Dynegys 50% ownership interest in WCP
Holdings to become the sole owner of power plants totaling
approximately 1,800 MW of generation capacity in the
Western region. The transaction is expected to close in the
first quarter of 2006. |
NRGs assets in the Western region consist primarily of
older, higher heat rate, gas-fired plants in southern
California. These plants, while older and less efficient than
newer combined cycle plants, possess locational advantages
during peak hours when the newer, remotely located plants are
unable to get through transmission congestion in southern
California. As a result, the Cal ISO designated NRGs El
Segundo, Encina and Cabrillo II plants as RMR qualifying
units in 2005, and therefore those plants are entitled to
certain fixed-cost payments from the Cal ISO for the right to
dispatch those units during periods of locational constraints.
Initially, transmission upgrades by Southern California Edison
and San Diego Gas and Electric in 2005 caused the Cal ISO
to drop the RMR designation for both El Segundo and the Encina
Unit 4 for 2006. However, Cal ISO designated Encina Unit 4 as an
RMR unit in a letter to Cabrillo Power I dated December 22,
2005, and a filing requesting FERC approval of the requisite
changes to Cabrillo Power Is RMR agreement for 2006 was
made on December 29, 2005. This change, if approved, will
assure that Encina Units 4 and 5 will receive partial cost
recovery under RMR and both units will be available in the
market for 2006.
Market Framework
The majority of NRGs assets in the Western region are
located within the control area of the Cal ISO. The Cal ISO
operates a financially settled real time balancing market. There
are currently no organized day ahead markets in the Western
region and such forward markets in California currently operate
similarly to those in the ERCOT market with all power sales and
purchases consummated bilaterally between individual
counterparties and scheduled for physical delivery with the Cal
ISO. All plants are subject to the FERC must offer
order, an order instituted during the energy crisis of 2000-2001
requiring any generator capable of operating and not subject to
a bilateral agreement to make its capacity available to Cal ISO.
The compensation paid by the Cal ISO for such service generally
covers only variable costs. Additionally, California generators
remain subject to a $250 per MWh price cap, another legacy
of the energy crisis mentioned above. FERC approved an increase
in the softcap from $250 per MWh to
$400 per MWh, effective January 1, 2006. NRG is
working with various industry groups and governmental
authorities to put
29
market reforms in place in California that will encourage new
investment and enable generators to earn acceptable returns on
new and existing investments.
WCP will continue to pursue repowering opportunities at the El
Segundo, Encina and Long Beach plants where grid stability and
in-load resource adequacy is needed. On December 23, 2004,
the CEC approved NRGs application for a permit to repower
the existing El Segundo site and replace retired units 1 and 2
with 630 MW of new combined cycle generation. On
January 19, 2005, the CEC voted unanimously to reconsider
its December 23, 2004 decision to certify the repowering
project. The reconsideration hearing took place on
February 2, 2005 and the permit was approved by unanimous
vote of the CEC. The reconsideration extended the
30-day period in which
parties may petition for rehearing or seek judicial review to
March 4, 2005. A petition seeking review of the CEC final
order was filed with the California Supreme Court on
March 14, 2005. On August 31, 2005, the California
Supreme Court refused to hear the case, making that date the
effective date of the permit. The El Segundo permit has as a
condition the payment of $5 million by the project to the
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Fund with the first $1 million
being due in equally quarterly installments beginning
30 days following the disposition of all appeals. The
initial quarterly payment has been made. Should we elect to
repower the Long Beach site, we will do it outside of the CEC
permitting process. We do not believe the CEC can legally assert
jurisdiction over a Long Beach repowering project as the total
anticipated megawatts added will be less than the number of
megawatts retired. The California Court of Appeals, in a case
involving the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, held
that the CEC jurisdiction is only required where the total
megawatts added exceed the existing megawatts of capacity by
over 50 megawatts.
In California, the Cal ISO continues with its plan to move
toward markets similar to PJM, NYISO and ISO-NE with its Market
Redesign & Technology Upgrade, or MRTU
formerly MD02. These changes, once implemented, will
re-establish a day-ahead time market and allow for multiple
settlements. We view this as a vast improvement to the existing
structure. In general, the Cal ISO is continuing along a path of
small incremental changes rather than significant market
restructuring. Although numerous stakeholder meetings have been
held, the final market design remains unknown at this time. The
effect of the new MRTU changes on us cannot be determined at
this time. In addition to that activity, the California Public
Utility Commission, or CPUC, recently issued their Resource
Adequacy Order, which we believe will ultimately create greater
opportunities for merchant generators in California. However,
the final order did delay the implementation of local capacity
requirements and allowed a liberalized phase out of firm
liquidated damages contracts, which may act as a disincentive
for load serving entities to contract for our capacity over the
next two years. Assembly Bill 1576 which will promote and codify
the recovery of costs from repowered facilities thus
making contracting from these sites more attractive to the
in-state-utilities, was passed by the Senate on
September 8, 2005, and signed by the Governor on
September 29, 2005. This provides opportunities for the
Western region, as WCP currently holds a permit for repowering
up to 630 MW at the El Segundo facility and options for
redevelopment at the Long Beach facility. Both facilities are
positioned for possible long-term contracts as the market rules
and structure fall into place in the near future.
The CEC recently issued their 2005 Energy Report
Range of Need and Policy Recommendations To the California
Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC. That study confirmed that
the SCE franchise territory will require over 8,000 MW of
new generation capacity by 2009; a dire prediction for a state
with limited new resources coming on line and retirement of
older facilities accelerating. There is some indication that the
various regulatory agencies are responding to these warnings by
moving to design a market that will provide the incentives to
invest in new generation. The CPUC now requires that
load-serving entities meet a 15-17% reserve margin by June 2006.
This has prompted RFOs from load-serving entities, with the
stated goal of engaging in bilateral contract negotiations with
the merchant generators to secure their long-term capacity
needs. Load-serving entities must demonstrate, by
January 27, 2006 and by September 30 for each year
thereafter that they have secured at least 90% of their capacity
needs for the following year. The CPUC order requiring a
demonstration of adequate capacity should present opportunities
to enter into new bilateral agreements pursuant to competitive
RFO processes. The Red Bluff and Chowchilla facilities have
received capacity contracts for the period April 1, 2006
through December 31, 2007 from a major load serving entity.
30
The capacity for El Segundo Units 3 and 4 has been secured under
a tolling agreement with a major load serving entity for the
period May 2006 through April 2008.
In September 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB2006,
commonly referred to as the re-regulation
initiative. A proposition (Proposition 80) that would amend
legislation forever prohibiting customer choice in
California was defeated in a November 2005 special election.
|
|
|
Other North American Assets |
As of December 31, 2005, NRG owned approximately
1,467 MW of generating capacity in other segments of the
United States. NRGs other North American power generation
assets are summarized in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generating | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
|
Plant |
|
Location |
|
% Owned | |
|
MW | |
|
Primary Fuel Type |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Audrain*
|
|
Vandalia, MO |
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
577 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Rockford I (Peaker)
|
|
Rockford, IL |
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
310 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Rocky Road
Partnership*
|
|
East Dundee, IL |
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
165 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Rockford II (Peaker)
|
|
Rockford, IL |
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Dover
|
|
Dover, DE |
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
Natural Gas/Coal |
Power Smith Cogeneration
|
|
Oklahoma City, OK |
|
|
6.25% |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Ilion
Cogeneration*
|
|
New York |
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
James River
|
|
Virginia |
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
Coal |
Cadillac*
|
|
Cadillac, MI |
|
|
50.0% |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
Wood |
Paxton Creek
|
|
Harrisburg, PA |
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other North American Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Certain of the above projects are in transition. The Audrain
project is under contract for sale. Closing is expected in 2006.
NRG is in advanced discussions regarding the sale of the
Cadillac project. NRG is currently performing under an agreement
whereby the Ilion project will be disconnected and terminated.
On December 27, 2005, NRG entered into a purchase and sale
agreement with Dynegy through which NRG will sell to Dynegy its
50% ownership interest in the jointly held entity that owns the
Rocky Road power plant. The transaction is conditioned upon
NRGs acquisition of Dynegys 50% interest in WCP
Holdings and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2006. |
Australia and All Other Generation and Non-Generation
Assets
As of December 31, 2005, NRG, through certain foreign
subsidiaries, had investments in power generation projects
located in Australia, Germany and Brazil with approximately
1,916 MW of total generating capacity. In addition, NRG
owns interests in coal mines located in Australia and Germany.
31
NRGs international power generation assets as of
December 31, 2005 are summarized in the table below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generating | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
Primary | |
Plant |
|
Location | |
|
% Owned | |
|
MW | |
|
Fuel Type | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Operating Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flinders
|
|
|
Australia |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Gladstone
|
|
|
Australia |
|
|
|
37.5 |
% |
|
|
605 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Schkopau
|
|
|
Germany |
|
|
|
41.9 |
% |
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
MIBRAG(1)
|
|
|
Germany |
|
|
|
50.0 |
% |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
Coal |
|
Itiquira
|
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
|
99.2 |
% |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
Hydro |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total International Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Primarily a coal mining facility. Approximately 90% of
MIBRAGs revenues represent coal sales and 8% represent
electricity sales. MIBRAG owns 110 MW of net exportable
generation. Approximately two-thirds of that amount is sold to
third parties and one-third is used to power mining and other
MIBRAG operations. NRG equity in net exportable electricity is
55 MW. |
Asset Management Strategy. Our strategy for maximizing
our return on investment in our assets concentrates on effective
contract management, operating the plant to ensure safe and
efficient operations and management of the equity investment,
including cash flow and finances. NRG is currently considering
strategic alternatives with respect to Australia either to
reposition its assets more effectively within the National
Electricity Market or to monetize its investment. We will seek
to determine the best option to optimize our investment by the
end of the second quarter of 2006.
NRG Flinders Assets. NRG Flinders is a merchant
generation business that derives revenue from bidding its
generation output into the South Australian region of the
National Electricity Market, or NEM, by trading the plant as a
portfolio, selling derivative hedges that are not plant specific
and supplying minor retail sales via contract. The bidding of
the plant as a portfolio supports strategies for maximizing
revenue of the entire portfolio both in terms of pool and
derivative revenues and the most economic fuel use. A hedge book
is maintained such that the short to medium term revenue is
secured via hedge levels up to and in the order of 75-80% of the
plant output. The current book is underpinned by a medium term
hedge with a major South Australian retailer.
The Gladstone Assets. We are the operators of the
Gladstone facility, however, the Gladstone assets are owned in
an unincorporated joint venture with other investors and NRG
does not have unilateral control over management of the assets.
Gladstone Power Station is fully contracted via a power purchase
agreement and a capacity purchase agreement with Boyne Smelter
Limited and Enertrade through 2029. Enertrade is a state owned
company that trades the excess power in the NEM.
|
|
|
Asset Management Strategy |
Our German assets are owned in partnership with other investors
and NRG does not have direct control over operations. Our
strategy for maximization of return on investment therefore
concentrates on the following: contract management, monitoring
of our facility operators to ensure safe, profitable and
sustainable operations; management of cash flow and finances;
and growth of our businesses through investments in projects
related to our current businesses.
32
|
|
|
Thermal and Chilled Water Businesses |
NRG Thermals thermal and chilled water businesses have a
steam and chilled water capacity of approximately 1,225 megawatt
thermal equivalents, or MWt.
As of December 31, 2005, NRG Thermal owned heating and
cooling systems that provide steam heating to approximately 555
customers and chilled water to 95 customers in five different
cities in the United States. In addition, as of that date, NRG
Thermal owned and operated three projects that serve
industrial/government customers with high-pressure steam and hot
water, an 88 MW combustion turbine peaking generation
facility and an 16 MW coal-fired cogeneration facility in
Dover, Delaware and a 12 MW gas-fired project in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Approximately 34% of Thermals
revenues are derived from its district heating and chilled water
business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Both our NRG Energy Center Pittsburgh and our NRG Energy Center
Harrisburg anticipate filing rate cases during 2006 seeking
increased rates under their tariffs for steam services as well
as chilled water for Pittsburgh.
|
|
|
Resource Recovery Facilities |
NRGs Resource Recovery business owns and operates fuel
processing projects. The alternative fuel currently processed is
municipal solid waste, approximately 85% of which is processed
into refuse derived fuel, or RDF. NRGs Resource Recovery
business has municipal solid waste processing capacity of 3,000
tons per day. NRGs Resource Recovery business owns and
operates NRG Processing Solutions, which includes 14 composting
and processing sites in Minnesota, of which five sites are
permitted to operate as municipal solid waste transfer stations.
Competition
Wholesale power generation is a capital-intensive,
commodity-driven business with numerous industry participants.
We compete on the basis of the location of our plants and owning
multiple plants in our regions, which increases the stability
and reliability of our energy supply. Wholesale power generation
is fundamentally a local business which, at present, is highly
fragmented (relative to other commodity industries) and diverse
in terms of industry structure. As such, there is a wide
variation in terms of the capabilities, resources, nature and
identity of the companies we compete against from market to
market.
Employees
As of December 31, 2005, the combined company has 3,682
employees, approximately 1,694 of whom were covered by
U.S. bargaining agreements. During 2005, neither NRG nor
Texas Genco experienced any significant labor stoppages or labor
disputes at their facilities.
Energy Regulatory Matters
As operators of power plants and participants in wholesale
energy markets, we are subject to regulation by various federal
and state government agencies. These include FERC, NRC, PUCT and
certain other state public utility commissions in which our
generating assets are located. In addition, we are also subject
to the market rules, procedures and protocols of the various ISO
markets in which we participate.
The plant operations of, and wholesale electric sales from our
Texas assets are not currently subject to regulation by FERC, as
they are deemed to operate solely within the ERCOT and not in
interstate commerce. As discussed below, these operations are
subject to regulations by PUCT as well as to regulation by the
NRC with respect to its ownership interest in the STP.
|
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FERC, among other things, regulates the transmission and
wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce under the
authority of the Federal Power Act, or FPA. In addition, under
existing regulations,
33
FERC determines whether an entity owning a generation facility
is an Exempt Wholesale Generator, or EWG, as such was defined in
the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, or PUHCA of
1935. FERC also determines whether a generation facility meets
the ownership and technical criteria of a Qualifying Facility,
or QF, under Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, or
PURPA. Each of NRGs U.S. generating facilities has
either been determined by FERC to qualify as a QF, or the
subsidiary owning the facility has been determined to be an EWG.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005. EPAct 2005 was enacted
into law on August 8, 2005. Among other things, EPAct 2005
repealed PUHCA of 1935, amended PURPA to remove statutory
restrictions on utility ownership of a QF and to remove a
utilitys obligation to buy from a QF under certain
circumstances, and enacted the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 2005, or PUHCA of 2005. EPAct 2005s PUHCA changes
became effective February 8, 2006. EPAct 2005s
amendments to PURPA were effective as of August 8, 2005.
Though generally supported by the industry and viewed as a
positive development, EPAct 2005 remains subject to FERC
interpretation, and FERC has issued several rulemakings and
rules to implement EPAct, some of which are still ongoing. NRG
is currently assessing the effect of EPAct 2005 and these
rulemakings issued by FERC to implement it on the companys
regulatory environment and business.
Federal Power Act. The FPA gives FERC exclusive
rate-making jurisdiction over wholesale sales of electricity and
transmission of electricity in interstate commerce. Under the
FPA, FERC, with certain exceptions, regulates the owners of
facilities used for the wholesale sale of electricity or
transmission in interstate commerce as public utilities. The FPA
also gives FERC jurisdiction to review certain transactions and
numerous other activities of public utilities. NRGs QFs
are currently exempt from the FERCs rate regulation under
Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA to the extent that sales
are made pursuant to a contract established under PURPA and are
not made under a market-based rate authorization from FERC.
Public utilities under the FPA are required to obtain
FERCs acceptance, pursuant to Section 205 of the FPA,
of their rate schedules for wholesale sales of electricity. All
of NRGs non-QF generating companies and power marketing
affiliates in the United States make sales of electricity
pursuant to market-based rates authorized by FERC. FERCs
orders that grant NRGs generating and power marketing
companies market-based rate authority reserve the right to
revoke or revise that authority if FERC subsequently determines
that NRG can exercise market power in transmission or
generation, create barriers to entry or engage in abusive
affiliate transactions. In addition, our market-based sales are
subject to certain market behavior rules and, if any of our
generating or power marketing companies were deemed to have
violated one of those rules, they would be subject to potential
disgorgement of profits associated with the violation and/or
suspension or revocation of their market-based rate authority,
as well as criminal and civil penalties. As a condition to the
orders granting us market-based rate authority, every three
years NRG is required to file a market update to show that it
continues to meet FERCs standards with respect to
generation market power and other criteria used to evaluate
whether entities qualify for market-based rates. NRG is also
required to report to FERC any material changes in status that
would reflect a departure from the characteristics that FERC
relied upon when granting NRGs various generating and
power marketing companies market-based rates. If
NRGs generating and power marketing companies were to lose
their market-based rate authority, such companies would be
required to obtain FERCs acceptance of a
cost-of-service rate
schedule and would become subject to the accounting,
record-keeping and reporting requirements that are imposed on
utilities with cost-based rate schedules.
Section 204 of the FPA gives FERC jurisdiction over a
public utilitys issuance of securities or assumption of
liabilities. However, FERC typically grants blanket approval for
future securities issuances or assumptions of liabilities to
entities with market-based rate authority. In the event that one
of NRGs public utility generating companies were to lose
its market-based rate authority, such companys future
securities issuances or assumptions of liabilities could require
prior approval from FERC.
Section 203 of the FPA requires FERCs prior approval
for the transfer of control over assets subject to FERCs
jurisdiction. EPAct 2005 amended this prior approval authority
in a number of ways. In particular, transactions involving only
generation assets which were previously exempt from FERC review
under Section 203 of the FPA will now be subject to such
review provided they meet the new $10 million threshold.
34
The provisions of EPAct 2005 relating to prior approval of asset
acquisitions under the FPA and FERCs rules promulgated
thereafter became effective February 8, 2006.
PUHCA. As discussed above, EPAct 2005 repealed PUHCA of
1935, effective February 8, 2006, and replaces it with
PUHCA of 2005. PUHCA of 2005 provides FERC with certain
authority over and access to books and records of public utility
holding companies not otherwise exempt by virtue of their
ownership of EWGs, QFs and Foreign Utility Companies, or FUCOs.
Because all of NRGs generating facilities have QF status
or are owned through EWGs or FUCOs, NRG does not currently
qualify as a holding company under PUHCA of 2005. As
noted above, FERC has a rulemaking ongoing to implement PUHCA
2005, and several companies have sought clarification of
FERCs rules.
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. PURPA was passed
in 1978 in large part to promote increased energy efficiency and
development of independent power producers. PURPA created QFs to
further both goals, and FERC is primarily charged with
administering PURPA as it applies to QFs. As discussed above,
under current law, some categories of QFs may be exempt from
regulation under the FPA as public utilities. PURPA incentives
also initially included a requirement that utilities must buy
and sell power to QFs. As noted above, EPAct 2005 has amended
several provisions of PURPA. Among other things, EPAct of 2005
provides for the elimination of the obligation imposed on
certain utilities to purchase power from QFs at an avoided cost
rate under certain conditions. However, the purchase obligation
is only eliminated if FERC first finds that a QF has
non-discriminatory access to wholesale energy markets having
certain characteristics (including nondiscriminatory
transmission and interconnection services provided by a regional
transmission entity in certain circumstances). Existing contacts
entered into under PURPA are not expected to be impacted,
however, certain of NRGs QFs currently interconnect into
markets that may meet the qualifications for elimination of the
PURPA purchase requirement. If the obligation to purchase from
some or all of NRGs QFs is terminated, NRG will need to
find alternative purchasers for the output of these QFs once
their current contracts expire. Such alternative purchases will
be at prevailing market rates, which may not be as favorable as
the terms of our PURPA sales arrangements under existing
contracts and thus may diminish the value of its QFs. In
addition, under FERC regulations implementing EPAct of 2005, QFs
not making sales pursuant to state-approved avoided cost rates
will become subject to FERCs ratemaking authority under
the FPA and be required to obtain market rate authority in order
to be allowed to sell power at market-based rates.
|
|
|
Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
The NRC is authorized under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, or the AEA, among other things, to grant licenses for,
and regulate the operation of, commercial nuclear power
reactors. As a holder of an ownership interest in STP, our
subsidiary Texas Genco, LP is an NRC licensee and is subject to
NRC regulation. This NRC license gives it the right only to
possess an interest in STP but not to operate it. Operating
authority under the NRC operating license for STP is held by
STPNOC. NRC regulation involves licensing, inspection,
enforcement, testing, evaluation and modification of all aspects
of plant design and operation (including the right to order a
plant shutdown), technical and financial qualifications, and
decommissioning funding assurance in light of NRC safety and
environmental requirements. In addition, NRC written approval is
required prior to a licensee transferring an interest in its
license, either directly or indirectly. As a possession-only
licensee (i.e., non-operating co-owner), the NRCs
regulation of Texas Genco, LP primarily focuses on its ability
to meet its financial and decommissioning funding assurance
obligations. In connection with the acquisition by Texas Genco
of a 30.8% interest in STP from CenterPoint Energy, the NRC
required Texas Genco to enter into a support agreement with
Texas Genco, LP to provide up to $120 million to Texas
Genco, LP if necessary to support operations at STP. Texas Genco
entered into that support agreement on April 13, 2005. The
support agreement remains in effect now that the Acquisition has
been consummated.
Decommissioning Trusts. Upon expiration of the operating
terms of the operation licenses for the two generating units at
STP (currently scheduled for 2027 and 2028), the co-owners of
STP are required under federal law to decontaminate and
decommission STP. In May 2004, an outside consultant estimated a
44.0% share of the STP decommissioning costs to be approximately
$650 million in 2004 dollars.
35
Under NRC regulations, a power reactor licensee generally must
pre-fund the full amount of its estimated NRC decommissioning
obligations unless it is a rate regulated utility (or a state or
municipal entity that sets its own rates) or has the benefit of
a state-mandated non-bypassable charge available to periodically
fund the decommissioning trust such that periodic payments to
the trust, plus allowable earnings, will equal the estimated
decommissioning obligations needed by the time decommissioning
is expected to begin. Currently, Texas Genco, LPs funding
against its decommissioning obligation is contained within two
separate trusts. PUCT regulations provide for the periodic
funding of our decommissioning obligations through
non-bypassable charges collected by CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC and AEP Texas Central Company, or CenterPoint
Houston and AEP TCC, from their customers.
In the event that the funds from the trusts are ultimately
determined to be inadequate to decommission the STP facilities,
the original owners of our STP interests, CenterPoint Houston
and AEP TCC, each will be required to collect, through their
PUCT-authorized non-bypassable charges to customers, additional
amounts required to fund the decommissioning obligations
relating to our 44.0% share, provided that we have complied with
the PUCTs rules and regulations regarding decommissioning
trusts. Following the completion of the decommissioning, if
surplus funds remain in the decommissioning trusts, any excess
will be refunded to the respective rate payers of CenterPoint
Houston or AEP TCC (or their successors).
|
|
|
Public Utility Commission of Texas |
Our Texas subsidiaries are registered as power generation
companies with PUCT. PUCT also has jurisdiction over power
generation companies with regard to the administration of
nuclear decommissioning trusts, PUCT state-mandated capacity
auctions and the implementation of measures to mitigate undue
market power that a power generation company may have and to
remedy market power abuses in the ERCOT market and, indirectly,
through oversight of ERCOT.
Regulatory Developments
In New England, New York, the Mid-Atlantic region, the Midwest
and California, FERC has approved regional transmission
organizations, also commonly referred to as independent system
operators, or ISOs. Most of these ISOs administer a wholesale
centralized bid-based spot market in their regions pursuant to
tariffs approved by FERC and associated ISO market rules. These
tariffs/market rules dictate how the day ahead and real-time
markets operate, how market participants may make bilateral
sales to one another, and how entities with market-based rates
shall be compensated within those markets. The ISOs in these
regions also control access to and the operation of the
transmission grid within their regions. In Texas, pursuant to a
1999 restructuring statute, the PUCT has granted similar
responsibilities to ERCOT.
We are affected by rule/tariff changes that occur in the
existing ISOs. The ISOs that oversee most of the wholesale power
markets have in the past imposed, and may in the future continue
to impose, price limitations and other mechanisms (in
particular, market power mitigation rules) to address some of
the volatility in these markets. These types of price
limitations and other regulatory mechanisms may adversely affect
the profitability of our generation facilities that sell energy
into the wholesale power markets. In addition, new approaches to
the sale of electric power, in particular capacity, have been
proposed, and it is not yet clear how they will operate in times
of market stress or whether they will provide adequate
compensation to generators over the long term.
|
|
|
Regional Businesses Market Developments |
At the direction of the PUCT, the ERCOT stakeholder process has
developed the Texas Nodal Protocols that sets forth
a complete and detailed revised wholesale market design based on
locational marginal pricing (in place of the current ERCOT zonal
market today). The stakeholder process took two years to
complete and incorporates a variety of unique characteristics
for a nodal market as the result of
36
accommodations reached by parties in the stakeholder process.
Major elements include bilateral energy and ancillary schedules,
day-ahead energy market, resource specific energy and ancillary
service bid curves, direct assignment of all congestion rents,
nodal energy prices for generators, aggregation of nodal to
zonal energy prices for loads, congestion revenue rights
(including pre-assignment for public power entities), and
pricing safeguards. The PUCT will consider approval of the Texas
Nodal Protocols by early 2006 and has indicated January 1,
2009, as the date for full implementation of the new market
design. Under the expedited schedule, the evidentiary hearing
concluded December 13, 2005, and briefing by parties
concluded January 27, 2006.
For a detailed discussion on market developments for the
Northeast, South Central, Western and Other regions, please see
Item 15 Note 26 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements.
Environmental Matters
We are subject to a broad range of environmental and safety laws
and regulations (across a broad number of jurisdictions) in the
development, ownership, construction and operation of domestic
and international projects. These laws and regulations generally
require that governmental permits and approvals be obtained
before construction or during operation of power plants.
Environmental laws have become increasingly stringent over time,
particularly the regulation of air emissions from power
generators. Such laws generally require regular capital
expenditures for power plant upgrades, modifications and the
installation of certain pollution control equipment. It is not
possible at this time to determine when or to what extent
additional facilities, or modifications to existing or planned
NRG facilities, will be required due to potential changes to
environmental and safety laws and regulations, regulatory
interpretations or enforcement policies. In general, future laws
and regulations are expected to require the addition of
emissions control or other environmental quality equipment or
the imposition of certain restrictions on the operations of the
combined company. We expect that future liability under, or
compliance with, environmental requirements could have a
material effect on our operations or competitive position.
|
|
|
U.S. Federal Environmental Initiatives |
On May 18, 2005, the US Environmental Protection Authority,
or USEPA, published the Clean Air Mercury Rule, or CAMR, to
permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. CAMR imposes limits on mercury emissions from new
and existing coal-fired plants and creates a market-based
cap-and-trade program that will reduce nationwide utility
emissions of mercury in two phases (2010 and 2018). Consistent
with the significant debate on whether the USEPA has authority
to regulate mercury emissions through a cap-and-trade mechanism
(as opposed to a command-and-control requirement to install
maximum achievable control technology, or MACT, on a
unit basis), 14 states, together with five environmental
organizations, have filed petitions for reconsideration of CAMR.
The states (including California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Wisconsin) allege that the rule violates the Clean Air Act, or
CAA, because it fails to treat mercury as a hazardous air
pollutant. On August 4, 2005, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the
environmental petitioners request for a stay of CAMR. On
October 28, 2005, the USEPA published notices of
reconsideration of seven specific aspects of CAMR (including
state allocations). Each of our coal-fired electric power plants
will be subject to mercury regulation. However, since the rule
has yet to be implemented by individual states and given the
USEPAs pending reconsideration of the rule, it is
difficult to assess with certainty how CAMR will affect our
operations. Nevertheless, we continue to actively review
emerging mercury monitoring and mitigation strategies and
technologies to identify the most cost-effective options for NRG
in implementing required mercury emission controls on the
stipulated schedule.
On May 12, 2005, the USEPA published the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, or CAIR. This rule applies to 28 Eastern
States and the District of Columbia and caps
SO2
and
NOX
emissions from power plants in two phases (2010 and 2015 for
SO2
and 2009 and 2015 for
NOX).
CAIR will apply to certain of the combined companys power
plants in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware,
Louisiana, Illinois, Penn-
37
sylvania, Maryland and Texas. States must achieve the required
emission reductions through: (a) requiring power plants to
participate in a USEPA-administered interstate cap-and-trade
system; or (b) measures to be selected by individual
states. On August 24, 2005, the USEPA published a proposed
Federal Implementation Plan, or FIP, to ensure that generators
affected by CAIR reduce emissions on schedule. In addition, on
December 20, 2005, the USEPA signed proposed revisions to
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for fine particulates (PM2.5) and inhalable coarse particulates
(PM10-PM2.5), that would require affected states to implement
further rules to address
SO2
and
NOX
emissions (as precursors of fine particulates in the
atmosphere). Further, on November 22, 2005, the USEPA
granted requests to reconsider four specific aspects of CAIR
(including the inclusion of certain states) with final action on
reconsideration expected by March 15, 2006. While our
current business plans include initiatives to address emissions
(for example, the conversion of Huntley and Dunkirk to burn low
sulfur coal), until the final CAIR rule and NAAQS for PM2.5,
PM10-2.5 and ozone are actually implemented by specific state
legislation, it is not possible to identify with greater
specificity the effect of CAIR on us. As noted below, certain
states in which we operate have already announced plans to
implement emissions reductions that go beyond the CAIR
requirements. It is possible that investments in additional
backend control technologies will be required and we continue to
evaluate these issues.
Although we recognize the uncertainties regarding how CAMR and
CAIR will be implemented, we expect to incur a substantial
increase in our environmental capital expenditures between 2009
and 2012 in order to ensure compliance with CAMR and CAIR. We
have currently estimated expenditures of around
$540 million for CAMR and CAIR compliance during this
period for the NRG facilities most of which would be incurred at
our various coal-fired plants in the Northeast region and South
Central region. We have currently estimated our total capital
expenditures for compliance with air pollution control
regulations from 2006 to 2014 at the NRG facilities at
approximately $675 million.
From 1999 through 2005, Texas Genco invested approximately
$700 million for
NOX
emissions controls at its plants. These emissions controls were
installed to comply with regulations adopted by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, or TCEQ, to attain the
one-hour NAAQS for ozone, as well as provisions of the Texas
electric restructuring law. As a result, emissions from our
plants in the Houston-Galveston area have been reduced by
approximately 88% from 1998 levels and our Texas fleet overall
operates at one of the lowest
NOX
emissions rates in the country. In aggregate, our Texas plants
are in compliance with current
NOX
emission limits and are not expected to incur material
environmental capital expenditures to ensure
NOX
emissions compliance in the next several years. The TCEQ has,
however, initiated a rulemaking process for establishing lower
NOX
emissions limits to assure compliance with the USEPA
8-hour ozone standard
in the Houston-Galveston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas. It is
possible that any new regulations implemented may require
additional
NOX
emission controls on the Texas plants in 2009 or beyond. We have
currently estimated approximately $70 million in additional
capital expenditures with respect to compliance with air
pollution control requirements (primarily replacement of
catalyst for
NOX
emission controls) between 2006 and 2014.
The USEPA had also proposed MACT standards for nickel from
oil-fired units that would essentially require the installation
of electrostatic precipitators on certain oil-fired units. These
proposed requirements were originally included in drafts of
CAMR. However, reflecting further dialogue with generation
industry participants and additional scientific review, the
nickel MACT provisions were omitted from CAMR. In fact, the
USEPA issued a delisting rule on March 29, 2005 effectively
removing the MACT standards for nickel (i.e., specific control
technologies to be installed at each affected plant) at
oil-fired power plants. A number of environmental groups lodged
legal challenges to the USEPAs delisting rule and the
agency has agreed to reconsider this delisting, although it has
not specified which issues will be reconsidered. As the
delisting challenge relates to both nickel from oil-fired power
plants and mercury from coal-fired plants, it is not possible to
predict the outcome of the pending legal action.
NRGs facilities in the eastern United States are subject
to a cap-and-trade program governing
NOX
emissions during the ozone season (May 1
through September 30). These rules essentially require that
one
NOX
allowance be held for each ton of
NOX
emitted from fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers, combustion
turbines, or combined cycle systems. Each of NRGs
facilities that is subject to these rules has been allocated
38
NOX
emissions allowances. NRG currently estimates that the portfolio
total is currently sufficient to generally cover operations at
these facilities through 2009. However, if at any point
allowances are insufficient for the anticipated operation of
each of these facilities, NRG must purchase
NOX
allowances. Any obligation to purchase a substantial number of
additional
NOX
allowances could have a material adverse effect on NRGs
operations.
The Clean Air Visibility Rule (or so-called BART rule) was
published by the USEPA on July 6, 2005. This rule is
designed to improve air quality in national parks and wilderness
areas. The rule requires regional haze controls (by targeting
SO2
and
NOX
emissions from sources including power plants of a certain
vintage) through the installation of Best Available Retrofit
Technology, or BART, in certain cases. States must develop
implementation plans by December 2007 which may be satisfied
through an emissions trading program for BART sources. Although
the BART rule will apply to many of the Companys
facilities, sources that are also subject to CAIR (which include
most of our facilities) will likely be able to satisfy their
obligations under the BART rule through compliance with the more
stringent CAIR. Accordingly, no material additional expenditures
are anticipated for compliance with the Clean Air Visibility
Rule, beyond those required by CAIR.
In addition to federal regulation, national legislation has been
proposed that would impose annual caps on U.S. power plant
emissions of
NOX,
SO2,
mercury, and, in some instances,
CO2.
While the Administrations proposed Clear Skies Act (which
would regulate the aforementioned pollutants except for
CO2)
stalled in Senate Committee on March 9, 2005, the Bush
Administration continues to support this legislation. Clear
Skies overlaps significantly with CAIR and CAMR, and would
likely modify or supersede those rules if enacted as federal
legislation as proposed.
Twelve states and various environmental groups filed suit
against the USEPA seeking confirmation that the USEPA has an
existing obligation to regulate greenhouse gases, or GHGs, under
the CAA. On July 15, 2005, the US Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (in Commonwealth of
Massachusetts v. EPA) supported the USEPAs
refusal to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles, although
avoiding the broader issue of whether USEPA has authority, or an
obligation, to regulate GHGs under the CAA. On September 1,
2005, five states requested reconsideration of this dismissal.
While the specific issue under consideration is the USEPAs
obligation to require GHG cuts from mobile sources, any decision
implying that the USEPA has an obligation to regulate GHGs
nationally has wider implications for the power generation
sector. In 2004, eight states and the City of New York filed
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against American Electric Power Company, Southern
Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, Inc. and
Cinergy Corporation, alleged to be the nations five
largest emitters of GHGs and all of which are owners of electric
generation (Connecticut v. AEP). An injunction was
sought against each defendant to force it to abate its
contribution to the global warming nuisance by
requiring
CO2
emissions caps and annual reductions in those caps for at least
a decade. On September 15, 2005, the public nuisance case
was dismissed on the basis that the claims made raised
political questions reserved to the legislative and
executive branches of the federal government. On
September 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal of this
decision with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The initiation of GHG-related litigation and proposed
legislation is becoming more frequent, although the outcomes of
such suits or proposed litigation cannot be predicted. Although
NRG has not been named as a defendant in any related suits to
date, the outcome of such suits could affect the overall
regulation of GHGs under the CAA. Our compliance costs with any
mandated GHG reductions in the future could be material. See
also Regional U.S. Environmental Regulatory
Initiatives, below.
In the 1990s, the USEPA commenced an industry-wide investigation
of coal-fired electric generators to determine compliance with
environmental requirements under the CAA associated with
repairs, maintenance, modifications and operational changes made
to facilities over the years. As a result, the USEPA and several
states filed suits against a number of coal-fired power plants
in mid-western and southern states alleging violations of the
CAA NSR/ Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD,
requirements. In one of the more prominent suits of this type,
involving Ohio Edison, a subsidiary of First Energy, the USEPA
reached settlement on March 18, 2005 for NSR issues with
respect to all coal-fired plant located in Ohio, obligating
First Energy to spend $1.1 billion to install pollution
control equipment through 2010. In another similar suit,
39
on June 15, 2005 the USEPA appeal in the Duke Energy case
was heard with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit holding in favor of Dukes position as to what type
of modification triggers NSR and PSD provisions. Rehearing
petitions filed in this matter by the Department of Justice and
some environmental groups were denied on August 30, 2005.
On December 28, 2005, further petitions were filed by
environmental groups requesting Supreme Court review of this
decision. On June 3, 2005, the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama reached conclusions favorable
to Alabama Power through the courts interpretation of NSR
rules relating to routine maintenance, repair and
replacement, or RMRR, and the correct test for determining
a significant net emissions increase. However, divergent rulings
exist on NSR issues across the country, with courts in Ohio and
Indiana providing interpretations of the NSR provisions
different from those in the Duke and Alabama cases. For example,
on August 29, 2005, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana ruled in U.S. v. Cinergy
in favor of the USEPA and specifically rejected the
conclusion in the Duke case.
In an effort to revise the legal requirements as to what amounts
to a major modification and what emissions tests apply, USEPA
issued its NSR Reform Rule on December 31, 2002, although
its implementation was stayed by court order on
December 24, 2003. There have been a number of legal
challenges to different aspects of the proposed rule. On
October 13, 2005 USEPA proposed changes to its NSR
permitting program to stipulate an emissions test standard based
on hourly emission rates, rather than aggregate annual emissions.
Given the divergent cases and rules in this area (at both the
federal and state levels), it is difficult to predict with
certainty the parameters of the final NSR/ PSD regime. However,
in October 2005, the USEPA announced that due to the
promulgation of programs such as CAIR and the Clean Air
Visibility Rule, it is placing a lower priority on continued
enforcement of suspected NSR/ PSD violations. In the meantime,
we continue to analyze all proposed projects at our facilities
to ensure ongoing compliance with the applicable legal
requirements.
In July 2004, USEPA published rules governing cooling water
intake structures at existing power facilities (the
Phase II 316(b) Rules). The Phase II 316(b) Rules
specify certain location, design, construction and capacity
standards for cooling water intake structures at existing power
plants using the largest amounts of cooling water. These rules
will require implementation of the Best Technology Available, or
BTA, for minimizing adverse environmental impacts unless a
facility shows that such standards would result in very high
costs or little environmental benefit. The Phase II 316(b)
Rules require our facilities that withdraw water in amounts
greater than 50 million gallons per day (and utilize at
least 25% for cooling purposes) to submit certain surveys, plans
and operational and restoration measures (with wastewater permit
applications or renewal applications) that would minimize
certain adverse environmental impacts of impingement or
entrainment. The Phase II 316(b) Rules affect a number of
NRGs plants, specifically those with once-through cooling
systems. Compliance options include the addition of control
technology, modified operations, restoration or a combination of
these, and are subject to a comparative cost and cost/benefit
justification. While NRG has conducted a number of the requisite
studies, until all the needed studies throughout our fleet have
been completed and consultations on the results have occurred
with USEPA (or its delegated state or regional agencies), it is
not possible to estimate with certainty the capital costs that
will be required for compliance with the Phase II 316(b)
Rules, although current estimates for the combined
companys facilities involve capital expenditures and
related costs of around $80 million between 2006 and 2012.
In addition, the Phase II Rules have been challenged by
industrial and environmental groups and the outcome of this
litigation could affect our obligations pursuant to these rules.
Further, Phase III rules, which were proposed in November
2004, may be applicable to some of our smaller power plants when
finalized.
Under the U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the
federal government must remove and ultimately dispose of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from nuclear
plants such as STP. Consistent with the Act, owners of nuclear
plants, including NRG and the other owners of STP, entered into
contracts
40
setting out the obligations of the owners and the
U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, including the fees being
paid by the owners for DOEs services. Since 1998, the DOE
has been in default on its obligations to begin removing spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from reactors. On
January 28, 2004, Texas Genco LP and the other owners of
STP filed a breach of contract suit against the DOE in order to
protect against the running of a statute of limitations.
Under the federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of
1980, as amended, the state of Texas is required to provide,
either on its own or jointly with other states in a compact, for
the disposal of all low-level radioactive waste generated within
the state. The state of Texas has agreed to a compact with the
states of Maine and Vermont for a disposal facility that would
be located in Texas. That compact was ratified by Congress and
signed by President Clinton in 1998. In 2003, the state of Texas
enacted legislation allowing a private entity to be licensed to
accept low-level radioactive waste for disposal. We intend to
continue to ship low-level waste material from STP off-site for
as long as an alternative disposal site is available. Should
existing off-site disposal become unavailable, the low-level
waste material will then be stored
on-site. STPs
on-site storage
capacity is expected to be adequate for STPs needs until
other off-site facilities become available.
|
|
|
Regional U.S. Environmental Regulatory
Initiatives |
Texas (ERCOT) Region. The USEPAs Region VI
(which includes Texas, Louisiana, and three other states)
indicated in September 2004 that it intends to evaluate 75%-80%
of the coal-fired power plants in its region over the next
several years for potential violations of the NSR program or
PSD. During air emissions inspections of the Limestone plant in
November 2004, a USEPA inspector informally advised Texas Genco
that the USEPA has drafted, but not yet sent, an information
request letter pursuant to Section 114 of the CAA
concerning potential NSR or PSD issues at the Limestone plant.
As of March 3, 2006, NRG has not received this letter and
has not had any further communications on this issue with the
USEPA.
Northeast Region. Massachusetts air regulations prescribe
schedules under which six existing coal-fired power plants
in-state are required to meet stringent emission limits for
NOX,
SO2,
mercury, and
CO2.
The state has reserved the issue of control of carbon monoxide
and particulate matter emissions for future consideration. Our
Somerset plant is subject to these regulations. NRG has
installed natural gas re-burn technology to meet the
NOX
and
SO2
limits. On June 4, 2004, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, or MADEP, issued its regulation on the
control of mercury emissions. The effect of this regulation is
that starting October 1, 2006, Somerset will be capped at
13.1 lbs/year of mercury and as of January 1, 2008,
Somerset must achieve a reduction in its mercury
inlet-to-outlet
concentration of 85%. We plan to meet the requirements through
the management of our fuels and the use of early and off-site
reduction credits. Additionally, NRG has entered into an
agreement with MADEP to retire or repower the Somerset station
by the end of 2009.
The Massachusetts carbon regulation 310 CMR 7.29 Emissions
Standards for Power Plants requires coal-fired generation
located within the state to comply with
CO2
emission restrictions. A carbon emissions cap applies beginning
January 1, 2006, while a rate requirement will apply in
2008. This regulation means that if
CO2
emissions at our Somerset facility exceed the annual cap from
2006, then the excess must be offset with approved
CO2
credits. However, since there are currently no approved
CO2
credits for use in Massachusetts, MADEP has proposed that
generators annually report overages, starting in 2006, and at
the time that there is a an established
CO2
market operating in the state, NRG would be required to purchase
or generate sufficient
CO2
credits to offset the balance. On December 20, 2005,
Massachusetts issued proposed revisions to the
CO2
regulations, including a proposed implementing regime that could
allow the use of
on-site and off-site
generated
CO2
credits, with a price backstop of $10/ton. MADEP expects to
finalize these revisions in spring 2006. Massachusetts was
involved in the initial negotiations regarding the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, which is discussed below,
but did not enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with
other northeastern states. Given the regulatory uncertainty
surrounding implementation of Massachusettss carbon market
and the corresponding costs of
CO2
allowances when that market exists, Somerset could be materially
affected if it does not retire by the end of 2009.
41
Pursuant to New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, or NYSDEC, rules (the Acid Deposition Reduction
Program, ADRP) fossil-fuel-fired combustion units in New York
must reduce
SO2
emissions to 25% below the levels allowed in the federal Acid
Rain Program starting January 2005 and to 50% below those levels
starting in January 2008. In addition, under ADRP generators now
also have to meet the ozone season
NOX
emissions limit year-round. Our strategy for complying with the
ADRP involves the generation of early reductions of
SO2and
NOX
emissions associated with fuel switching and use such reductions
to extend the timeframe for implementing technological controls,
which could ultimately include the addition of flue gas
desulfurization, or FGD, and selective catalytic reduction, or
SCR, equipment. On January 11, 2005, NRG reached an
agreement with the State of New York and the NYSDEC in
connection with emissions reductions at the Huntley and Dunkirk
facilities, as discussed below in Legal Proceedings. The Consent
Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York on June 3, 2005. NRG does not
anticipate that any additional material capital expenditures,
beyond those already spent, will be required for our Huntley and
Dunkirk plants to meet the current compliance standards under
the Consent Decree through 2010, although, this does not reflect
any additional capital expenditures that may be required to
satisfy other federal and state laws.
Huntley Power LLC, Dunkirk Power LLC and Oswego Power LLC
entered into a Consent Order with NYSDEC, effective
March 31, 2004, regarding certain alleged opacity
exceedances. The Consent Order required the respondents to pay a
civil penalty of $1.0 million which was paid in April 2004.
The Order also stipulates penalties (payable quarterly) for
future violations of opacity requirements and a compliance
schedule. NRG recently resolved a dispute with NYSDEC over the
method of calculation for stipulated penalties. NRG paid NYSDEC
$1.1 million at the end of 2005 to cover the stipulated
penalty payments that had been withheld pending resolution of
the dispute.
While no rules affecting NRGs existing facilities have
been formally proposed, Delaware has recently issued a
Start Action Notice to impose emissions standards
for
SO2,
NOX
and mercury. Delaware is pursuing such rule-making based on
recent determinations that portions of the state are in
non-attainment for NAAQS for fine particulates, and all of the
state is in non-attainment for the NAAQS for 8-Hour Ozone. We
are evaluating emissions reduction opportunities which may
include blending low sulfur western coals. NRG is actively
participating in the Delaware rule-making as a stakeholder and
will continue to be involved in environmental policy-making
efforts in Delaware through the Governors Energy Task
Force and interactions with legislators, the PSC and the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, or DNREC.
The Ozone Transport Commission, or OTC, was established by
Congress and governs ozone and the
NOX
budget program in certain eastern states, including
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and Delaware. In January
2005, the OTC redoubled its efforts to develop a multi-pollutant
regime
(SO2,
NOX
, mercury and
CO2)
that is expected to be completed by mid-2006 (with individual
state implementation to follow). On June 8, 2005, the OTC
members unanimously resolved to implement CAIR-Plus
emissions regulations, based on concerns that the USEPAs
CAIR fails to achieve attainment of
8-hour ozone and fine
particulate matter. As a result, the OTC proposes to implement a
regional plan containing emissions reduction targets for power
plants that exceed those under CAIR. The OTC targets and
timelines are as follows: (a) through September 2006: write
model rule, with participating states signing a Memorandum of
Understanding; (b) by December 2006 states file their
implementation plans or reduction regulations; (c) 2008
Phase I reductions of
NOX
(to 1.87 million tons) and
SO2
(to 3.0 million tons) apply; (d) 2012 Phase II
reductions of
NOX
(to 1.28 million tons) and
SO2
(to 2.0 million tons) apply; and (e) 2015 90% mercury
removal required. OTCs proposed CAIR-Plus involves
emissions reductions which are both sooner and more aggressive
than CAIR (e.g., aggregate
NOX
reductions would be 25% greater than CAIR, while
SO2
reductions would be 33% greater than CAIR). NRG continues to be
engaged in the OTC stakeholder process. While it is not possible
to predict the outcome of this regional legislative effort, to
the extent that the OTC is successful in implementing emissions
requirements that are more stringent than existing regimes
(including the recently reached New York settlement), NRG could
be materially impacted.
On December 20, 2005, seven northeastern states entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to create a regional
initiative to establish a cap-and-trade GHG program for electric
generators, referred to as the
42
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. The model RGGI rule
is scheduled to be announced within the next few months, with an
estimate of two to three years for participating states to
finalize implementing regulations. The current proposal is for
the program to start in 2009, with a review in 2015 and an
assessment of further reductions after 2020. The proposal
involves an overall RGGI cap (with state sub-caps) based on
CO2
emissions for the period 2000 to 2004. That cap, referred to as
stabilization, will remain the same through 2015,
with a 10% reduction between 2015 and 2020. Decisions on
allowance allocations will be made by each state, although at
least 25% of the state allocations will be set aside for public
purposes, suggesting that from implementation, generators in the
RGGI region may receive an allocation of allowances that is
materially less than required to cover existing emissions,
potentially having a significant effect on the cost of
operations. While the details of the model rule are still under
development, when RGGI is implemented, our plants in New York,
Delaware and Connecticut may be materially affected. If
Massachusetts, which was originally involved in the development
of RGGI, decides to participate, NRGs plant in that state
may also be affected.
South Central Region. The Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, or LADEQ, has promulgated State
Implementation Plan revisions to bring the Baton Rouge ozone
non-attainment area into compliance with applicable NAAQS. NRG
participated in development of the revisions, which require the
reduction of
NOX
emissions at the gas-fired Big Cajun I Power Station and
coal-fired Big Cajun II Power Station to 0.1 lbs/ MMBtu and
0.21 lbs/ MMBtu
NOX,
respectively (both based on heat input). This revision of the
Louisiana air rules would constitute a
change-in-law covered
by agreement between Louisiana Generating, LLC and the electric
cooperatives (power off-takers), allowing nearly all of the
costs of added combustion controls to be passed through to the
cooperatives. The combustion controls required at the Big
Cajun II Generating Station to meet the states
NOX
regulations have been installed.
On January 27, 2004, Louisiana Generating, LLC and Big
Cajun II received a request for information under
Section 114 of the CAA from USEPA seeking information
primarily related to physical changes made at Big Cajun II
and subsequently received a notice of violation, or NOV, based
on alleged NSR violations. See Legal
Proceedings for a discussion of this matter. NRG is
up-to-date with all
USEPA information requests it has received in connection with
this matter and has not been contacted by USEPA pursuant to the
NOV since May 2005.
Western Region. The El Segundo Generating Station is
regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, or
SCAQMD. Before its retirement as of January 1, 2005, the
Long Beach Generating Station was also regulated by SCAQMD.
SCAQMD approved amendments to its Regional Clean Air Incentives
Market, or RECLAIM,
NOX
regulations on January 7, 2005. RECLAIM is a regional
emission-trading program targeting
NOX
reductions to achieve state and federal ambient air quality
standards for ozone. Among other changes, the amendments reduce
the
NOX
RECLAIM Trading Credit, or RTC, holdings of El Segundo Power,
LLC and Long Beach Generation LLC facilities by certain amounts.
Notwithstanding these amendments, retained RTCs are expected to
be sufficient to operate El Segundo Units 3 and 4 as high as
100% capacity factor for the life of those units.
On October 6, 2005, the California Public Utilities
Commission, or CPUC, adopted a policy statement on GHG
Performance Standards as part of a focus on emissions from
conventional fossil-fuel resources. The adopted policy statement
directs the CPUC to investigate a GHG emissions performance
standard for energy procurement by the states
Investor-Owned Utilities, or IOUs, that is no higher than the
GHG emissions levels of a combined-cycle natural gas turbine for
all energy procurement contracts longer than three years in
length and for all new IOU owned generation. On January 13,
2006, the CPUC issued a draft decision establishing a load-based
GHG emission cap that will apply to IOUs. While the decision
doesnt establish specific caps, it does indicate a
preference for using 1990 emissions as the preferred baseline
year. The decision also restricts IOUs from entering into power
purchase agreements with generators unless the generator reports
its GHG emissions through the California Climate Action
Registry. West Coast Power is a member of the Registry and will
be finalizing its 2004 GHG inventory by the end of February
2006. The CPUC is obligated to evaluate and decide on the
details of the GHG cap and trading program under the recent
draft decision by, ,as part of either an existing or new CPUC
rulemaking sometime in 2006.
43
On February 9, 2006, the California State Lands Commission
(CSLC) postponed an agenda item regarding,
Commission consideration of a resolution supporting the
elimination of once through cooling in California power
generation facilities. The draft resolution urges the
California State Water Resource Control Board and the California
Energy Commission to develop policies that eliminate once
through cooling systems at new and existing power plants in
California. The draft resolution also requires that the CSLC not
approve new or extended leases for power plants utilizing once
through cooling systems after 2020. This resolution, if adopted,
would affect the long term operation of the once through cooling
systems at the El Segundo and Encina power stations as both
systems rely on submerged land leases with the CSLC and both of
which are currently undergoing lease renewals. Under pressure
from power and desalination water industry groups, the CSLC
agreed to postpone the agenda item until the April 27, 2006
Commission meeting in order to better understand the costs and
impacts associated with the decision.
|
|
|
Domestic Site Remediation Matters |
Under certain federal, state and local environmental laws and
regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of any
facility, including an electric generating facility, may be
required to investigate and remediate releases or threatened
releases of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products
at the facility. We may also be held liable to a governmental
entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury
and investigation and remediation costs incurred by a party in
connection with hazardous material releases or threatened
releases. These laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, or SARA, impose liability without regard to whether the
owner knew of or caused the presence of the hazardous
substances, and courts have interpreted liability under such
laws to be strict (without fault) and joint and several. The
cost of investigation, remediation or removal of any hazardous
or toxic substances or petroleum products could be substantial.
Cleanup obligations can often be triggered during the closure or
decommissioning of a facility, in addition to spills or other
occurrences during our operations.
On January 18, 2005, NRG Indian River Operations, Inc.
received a letter of informal notification from DNREC stating
that it may be a potentially responsible party with respect to
the Burton Island Landfill, along with Delmarva Power. The
letter signals only that an investigation is to be commenced and
is not a conclusive determination. Further, the Burton Island
Landfill is a site that would potentially qualify for a remedy
under a Voluntary Cleanup Program or VCP. We have
signaled our interest in being considered for a VCP should
matters progress. With the exception of the foregoing, neither
NRG nor Texas Genco have been named as a potentially responsible
party with respect to any off-site waste disposal matter.
Texas (ERCOT) Region. The lignite used to fuel the
Limestone facility is obtained from a surface mine adjacent to
the facility under an amended long-term contract with Texas
Westmoreland Coal Co., or TWCC, entered into in August 1999.
TWCC is responsible for performing ongoing reclamation
activities at the mine until all lignite reserves have been
produced. When production is completed at the mine, Texas Genco
is responsible for final mine reclamation obligations. The
Railroad Commission of Texas has imposed a bond obligation of
approximately $70 million on TWCC for the reclamation of
this lignite mine. Final reclamation activity is expected to
commence in 2015. Pursuant to the contract with TWCC, an
affiliate of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. has guaranteed
$50 million of this obligation until 2010. The remaining
sum of approximately $20 million has been bonded by the
mine operator, TWCC. Under the terms of Texas Gencos
agreement, Texas Genco is required to post a corporate guarantee
in the amount of $50 million of TWCCs reclamation
bond when CenterPoints obligation lapses. As of
December 31, 2005, Texas Genco had accrued approximately
$17 million related to the mine reclamation obligation.
Further details regarding our Domestic Site Remediation
obligations for the Northeast, South Central and Western regions
can be found at Item 15 Note 27 to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
|
International Environmental Matters |
Most of the foreign countries in which NRG owns or may acquire
or develop independent power projects have environmental and
safety laws or regulations relating to the ownership or
operation of electric power
44
generation facilities. These laws and regulations, like those in
the U.S., are constantly evolving and have a significant impact
on international wholesale power producers. In particular,
NRGs international power generation facilities will likely
be affected by emissions limitations and operational
requirements imposed by the Kyoto Protocol, which is an
international treaty related to greenhouse gas emissions which
entered into force on February 16, 2005, and country-based
restrictions pertaining to global climate change concerns.
We retain appropriate advisors in foreign countries and seek to
design our international asset management strategy to comply
with each countrys environmental and safety laws and
regulations. There can be no assurance that changes in such laws
or regulations will not adversely effect our international
operations.
Australia. With respect to Australia, climate change is
considered a long-term issue (e.g. 2010 and beyond) and the
Australian governments response to date has included a
number of initiatives, all of which have had no or minimal
impact on our operations. The Australian government has stated
that Australia will achieve its Kyoto Protocol target of 8%
below 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels for the 2008 to 2012
reporting period, but that Australia will not ratify the Kyoto
Protocol. Each Australian state government is considering
implementing a number of climate change initiatives that will
vary considerably state to state, with the possible exception of
an inter-jurisdictional state-led carbon trading proposal (which
is not supported by the federal government).
NRG Flinders disposes of ash to slurry ponds at Port Augusta in
South Australia. At the end of life of the power station, NRG
Flinders will have an obligation to remediate these ponds in
accordance with a plan accepted by the South Australian
Environment Protection Agency and confirmed in the Environment
Compliance Agreement between the South Australian Minister for
Environment and Heritage and NRG Flinders dated
September 20, 2000, or the EC Agreement. The estimated cost
of remediation including contingencies according to the plan is
AUD 2.0 million (approximately $1.5 million). There is
no timeline associated with the obligation, but the EC Agreement
extends to 2025. Under these arrangements, required remediation
relates to surface remediation and does not entail any
groundwater remediation.
MIBRAG/ Schkopau, Germany. While
CO2
emissions trading began in Germany in 2005, pursuant to European
Union obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, we do not currently
expect the
CO2
trading program to be a material constraint on our business in
Germany. Changes to the German Emission Control Directive will
result in lower
NOX
emission limits for plants firing conventional fuels
(Section 13 of the Directive) and co-firing waste products
(Section 17 of the Directive). The new regulations will
require the Mumsdorf and Deuben Power stations to install
additional controls to reduce
NOX
emissions in 2006. These plant modifications are proceeding on
schedule.
The European Unions Groundwater Directive and Mine
Wastewater Management Directive are in the rule-making stage
with the final outcome still under debate. Given the uncertainty
regarding the possible outcome of the debate on these
directives, we cannot quantify at this time the effect such
requirements would have on our future coal mining operations in
Germany.
A new law specifically dealing with the relocation of the
residents of Heuersdorf from the path of the mining plan was
enacted by the legislature of Saxony in 2004. On
November 25, 2005, the Saxony Constitutional Court upheld
the constitutionality of the Heuersdorf act. This ruling cannot
be appealed. Nuisance suits remain a possibility, but the
courts ruling brings the matter closer to final resolution.
The supply contracts under which MIBRAG mines lignite from the
Profen mine expire on December 31, 2021. The contracts
under which MIBRAG mines lignite from the Schleenhain mine
expire in 2041. At the end of each mines productive
lifetime, MIBRAG will be required to reclaim certain areas.
MIBRAG accrues for these eventual expenses and estimates the
cost of the final reclamation to approach approximately
176 million
in the instance of the Schleenhain mine and
132 million
for Profen.
45
Insurance
NRG carries insurance coverage consistent with companies engaged
in similar commercial operations with similar properties,
including business interruption insurance for the coal and
lignite plants. However, NRGs insurance policies are
subject to certain limits and deductibles as well as policy
exclusions. Adequate insurance coverage in the future may be
more expensive or may not be available on commercially
reasonable terms. Also, the insurance proceeds received for any
loss of or any damage to any of our generation plants may not be
sufficient to restore the loss or damage without negative impact
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
NRG believes that the insurance program that is presently in
effect for NRG after its acquisition of Texas Genco is
consistent with prudent industry practice.
NRG and the other owners of STP maintain nuclear property and
nuclear liability insurance coverage as required by law and
periodically review available limits and coverage for additional
protection. The owners of STP currently maintain
$2.75 billion in property damage insurance coverage, which
is above the legally required minimum. STPNOC currently carries
accidental outage coverage with a 17 week deductible and a
six week indemnity at a rate of $3.5 million per week. This
coverage may not be available on commercially renewable terms or
may be more expensive in the future and any proceeds from such
insurance may not be sufficient to indemnify the owners of STP
for their losses. NRG has also purchased additional accidental
outage coverage for its ownership percentage in STP. This
coverage will provide maximum weekly indemnity of
$1.98 million for 52 weeks and $1.584 million per
week for the next 104 weeks after the
17-week waiting period
and six-week indemnity period have been met. These figures are
per unit and if more than one unit experiences an outage from
the same accident, the weekly indemnity is limited to 80% of the
single unit recovery when both units are out of service.
The Price-Anderson Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of
2005, requires owners of nuclear power plants in the
U.S. to be collectively responsible for retrospective
secondary insurance premiums for liability to the public arising
from nuclear incidents resulting in claims in excess of the
required primary insurance coverage amount of $300 million
per reactor. For such claims in excess of $300 million per
reactor, NRG and the other owners of STP are liable for any
single incident, whether it occurs at STP or at another nuclear
power plant not owned by it, up to a cap of $95.8 million
per reactor in retrospective premiums for such incident but not
to exceed $15 million per year in each case as adjusted for
future inflation. These amounts are assessed per each licensed
reactor. STP is a two reactor facility and our liability is
capped at 44.0% of these amounts due to our 44.0% interest in
STP. The Price-Anderson Act only covers nuclear liability
associated with any accident in the course of operation of the
nuclear reactor, transportation of nuclear fuel to the reactor
site, in the storage of nuclear fuel and waste at the reactor
site and the transportation of the spent nuclear fuel and
nuclear waste from the nuclear reactor. All other non-nuclear
liabilities are not covered. Any substantial retrospective
premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act or losses not
covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
46
Item 1A Risk Factors Related to NRG Energy,
Inc.
|
|
|
Many of our power generation facilities operate, wholly or
partially, without long-term power sale agreements. |
Many of our facilities operate as merchant
facilities without long-term power sale agreements, and
therefore are exposed to market fluctuations. Without the
benefit of long-term power purchase agreements for certain
assets, we cannot be sure that we will be able to sell any or
all of the power generated by these facilities at commercially
attractive rates or that these facilities will be able to
operate profitably. This could lead to future impairments of our
property, plant and equipment or to the closing of certain of
our facilities resulting in economic losses and liabilities,
which could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.
|
|
|
Our financial performance may be impacted by future
decreases in oil and natural gas prices, significant and
unpredictable price fluctuations in the wholesale power markets
and other market factors that are beyond our control. |
A significant percentage of the companys domestic revenues
is derived from baseload power plants that are fueled by coal.
In many of the competitive markets where we operate, the price
of power typically is set by marginal cost natural gas-fired and
oil-fired power plants that currently have substantially higher
variable costs than our solid fuel baseload power plants. The
current pricing and cost environment allows our baseload coal
generation assets to earn attractive operating margins compared
to plants fueled by natural gas and oil. A decrease in oil and
natural gas prices could be expected to result in a
corresponding decrease in the market price of power but would
generally not affect the cost of the solid fuels that we use.
This could significantly reduce the operating margins of our
baseload generation assets and materially and adversely impact
our financial performance.
We sell all or a portion of the energy, capacity and other
products from many of our facilities to wholesale power markets,
including energy markets operated by independent system
operators, or ISOs, or regional transmission organizations, as
well as wholesale purchasers. We are generally not entitled to
traditional cost-based regulation, therefore we sell electric
generation capacity, power and ancillary services to wholesale
purchasers at prices determined by the market. As a result, we
are not guaranteed any rate of return on our capital investments
through mandated rates, and our revenues and results of
operations depend upon current and forward market prices for
power.
Market prices for power, generation capacity and ancillary
services tend to fluctuate substantially. Unlike most other
commodities, electric power can only be stored on a very limited
basis and generally must be produced concurrently with its use.
As a result, power prices are subject to significant volatility
from supply and demand imbalances, especially in the day-ahead
and spot markets. Long-term and short-term power prices may also
fluctuate substantially due to other factors outside of our
control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
increases and decreases in generation capacity in our markets,
including the addition of new supplies of power from existing
competitors or new market entrants as a result of the
development of new generation plants, expansion of existing
plants or additional transmission capacity; |
|
|
|
changes in power transmission or fuel transportation capacity
constraints or inefficiencies; |
|
|
|
electric supply disruptions, including plant outages and
transmission disruptions; |
|
|
|
weather conditions; |
|
|
|
changes in the demand for power or in patterns of power usage,
including the potential development of demand-side management
tools and practices; |
|
|
|
availability of competitively priced alternative power sources; |
|
|
|
development of new fuels and new technologies for the production
of power; |
|
|
|
natural disasters, wars, embargoes, terrorist attacks and other
catastrophic events; |
47
|
|
|
|
|
regulations and actions of the ISOs; and |
|
|
|
federal and state power market and environmental regulation and
legislation. |
These factors have caused our quarterly operating results to
fluctuate in the past and will continue to cause them to do so
in the future.
|
|
|
Our costs, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows could be adversely impacted by disruption of our fuel
supplies. |
We rely on coal, oil and natural gas to fuel our power
generation facilities. Delivery of these fuels to our facilities
is dependent upon the continuing financial viability of
contractual counterparties as well as upon the infrastructure
(including rail lines, rail cars, barge facilities, roadways,
and natural gas pipelines) available to serve each generation
facility. As a result, we are subject to the risks of
disruptions or curtailments in the production of power at our
generation facilities if a counterparty fails to perform or if
there is a disruption in the fuel delivery infrastructure.
The company has sold forward a substantial part of its baseload
power in order to lock in long-term prices that it deemed to be
favorable at the time it entered into the forward sale
contracts. In order to hedge our obligations under these forward
power sales contracts, we have entered into long-term and
short-term contracts for the purchase and delivery of fuel. Many
of our forward power sales contracts do not allow us to pass
through changes in fuel costs or discharge the companys
power sale obligations in the case of a disruption in fuel
supply due to force majeure events or the default of a fuel
supplier or transporter. Disruptions in our fuel supplies may
therefore require us to find alternative fuel sources at higher
costs, to find other sources of power to deliver to
counterparties at higher cost, or to pay damages to
counterparties for failure to deliver power as contracted. Any
such event could have a material adverse effect on our financial
performance.
We also buy significant quantities of fuel on a short-term or
spot market basis. Prices for all of our fuels fluctuate,
sometimes rising or falling significantly over a short period.
The price we can obtain for the sale of energy may not rise at
the same rate, or may not rise at all, to match a rise in fuel
or delivery costs. This may have a material adverse effect on
our financial performance. Changes in market prices for natural
gas, coal and oil may result from the following:
|
|
|
|
|
weather conditions; |
|
|
|
seasonality; |
|
|
|
demand for energy commodities and general economic conditions; |
|
|
|
disruption of electricity, gas or coal transmission or
transportation, infrastructure or other constraints or
inefficiencies; |
|
|
|
additional generating capacity; |
|
|
|
availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources; |
|
|
|
availability and levels of storage and inventory for fuel stocks; |
|
|
|
natural gas, crude oil, refined products and coal production
levels; |
|
|
|
the creditworthiness or bankruptcy or other financial distress
of market participants; |
|
|
|
changes in market liquidity; |
|
|
|
natural disasters, wars, embargoes, acts of terrorism and other
catastrophic events; |
|
|
|
federal, state and foreign governmental regulation and
legislation; and |
|
|
|
our creditworthiness and liquidity and willingness of fuel
suppliers/transporters to do business with us. |
Our plant operating characteristics and equipment, particularly
at our coal-fired plants, often dictate the specific fuel
quality to be combusted. The availability and price of specific
fuel qualities may vary due to
48
supplier financial or operational disruptions, transportation
disruptions and force majeure. At times, coal of specific
quality may not be available at any price, or we may not be able
to transport such coal to our facilities on a timely basis. In
such case, we may not be able to run a coal facility even if it
would be profitable. Operating a coal facility with lesser
quality coal can lead to emission or operating problems. If we
had sold forward the power from such a coal facility, we could
be required to supply or purchase power from alternate sources,
perhaps at a loss. This could have a material adverse impact on
the financial results of specific plants and on our results of
operations.
|
|
|
There may be periods when we will not be able to meet our
commitments under our forward sales obligations at a reasonable
cost or at all. |
A substantial portion of the output from NRGs units is
sold forward under fixed price power sales contracts through
2010, and we also sell forward the output from our intermediate
and peaking facilities when we deem it commercially advantageous
to do so. Because our obligations under most of these agreements
are not contingent on a unit being available to generate power,
we are generally required to deliver power to the buyer, even in
the event of a plant outage, fuel supply disruption or a
reduction in the available capacity of the unit. To the extent
that we do not have sufficient lower cost capacity to meet our
commitments under our forward sales obligations, we would be
required to supply replacement power either by running our
other, higher cost power plants or by obtaining power from
third-party sources at market prices that could substantially
exceed the contract price. If we failed to deliver the
contracted power, then we would be required to pay the
difference between the market price at the delivery point and
the contract price, and the amount of such payments could be
substantial.
In NRGs South Central region, NRG has long-term contracts
with rural cooperatives that require it to serve all of the
cooperatives requirements at prices that generally reflect
the costs of coal-fired generation. At times, the output from
NRGs coal-fired Big Cajun II facility is inadequate
to serve these obligations, and when that happens NRG typically
purchases power from other power producers, often at a loss.
NRGs financial returns from its South Central region are
likely to deteriorate over time as the rural cooperatives grow
their customer bases, unless NRG is able to amend or renegotiate
its contracts with the cooperatives or add generating capacity.
|
|
|
Our trading operations and the use of hedging agreements
could result in financial losses that negatively impact our
results of operations. |
We enter into hedging agreements, including contracts to
purchase or sell commodities at future dates and at fixed
prices, in order to manage the commodity price risks inherent in
our power generation operations. These activities, although
intended to mitigate price volatility, expose us to other risks.
When we sell power forward, we give up the opportunity to sell
power at higher prices in the future, which not only may result
in lost opportunity costs but also may require us to post
significant amounts of cash collateral or other credit support
to our counterparties. Further, if the values of the financial
contracts change in a manner we do not anticipate, or if a
counterparty fails to perform under a contract, it could harm
our business, operating results or financial position.
We do not typically hedge the entire exposure of our operations
against commodity price volatility. To the extent we do not
hedge against commodity price volatility, our results of
operations and financial position may be improved or diminished
based upon movement in commodity prices.
We may engage in trading activities, including the trading of
power, fuel and emissions credits that are not directly related
to the operation of our generation facilities or the management
of related risks. These trading activities take place in
volatile markets and some of these trades could be characterized
as speculative. We would expect to settle these trades
financially rather than through the production of power or the
delivery of fuel. This trading activity may expose us to the
risk of significant financial losses which could have a material
adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
49
|
|
|
We may not have sufficient liquidity to hedge market risks
effectively. |
We are exposed to market risks through our power marketing
business, which involves the sale of energy, capacity and
related products and the purchase and sale of fuel, transmission
services and emission allowances. These market risks include,
among other risks, volatility arising from location and timing
differences that may be associated with buying and transporting
fuel, converting fuel into energy and delivering the energy to a
buyer.
We undertake these marketing activities through agreements with
various counterparties. Many of our agreements with
counterparties include provisions that require us to provide
guarantees, offset of netting arrangements, letters of credit, a
second lien on assets and/or cash collateral to protect the
counterparties against the risk of our default or insolvency.
The amount of such credit support that must be provided
typically is based on the difference between the price of the
commodity in a given contract and the market price of the
commodity. Significant movements in market prices can result in
our being required to provide cash collateral and letters of
credit in very large amounts. The effectiveness of our strategy
may be dependent on the amount of collateral available to enter
into or maintain these contracts, and liquidity requirements may
be greater than we anticipate or are able to meet. Without a
sufficient amount of working capital to post as collateral in
support of performance guarantees or as cash margin, we may not
be able to manage price volatility effectively or to implement
our strategy. An increase in demands from our counterparties to
post letters of credit or cash collateral may negatively affect
our liquidity position and financial condition.
Further, if our facilities experience unplanned outages, we may
be required to procure replacement power at spot market prices
in order to fulfill contractual commitments. Without adequate
liquidity to post margin and collateral requirements, we may be
exposed to significant losses, may miss significant
opportunities, and may have increased exposure to the volatility
of spot markets.
|
|
|
The accounting for our hedging activities may increase the
volatility in our quarterly and annual financial results. |
We engage in commodity-related marketing and price-risk
management activities in order to economically hedge our
exposure to market risk with respect to:
|
|
|
|
|
electricity sales from our generation assets; |
|
|
|
fuel utilized by those assets; and |
|
|
|
emission allowances. |
We generally attempt to balance our fixed-price physical and
financial purchases and sales commitments in terms of contract
volumes and the timing of performance and delivery obligations,
through the use of financial and physical derivative contracts.
These derivatives are accounted for in accordance with
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended by
SFAS No. 137, SFAS No. 138 and
SFAS No. 149. SFAS No. 133 requires us to
record all derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value with
changes in the fair value resulting from fluctuations in the
underlying commodity prices immediately recognized in earnings,
unless the derivative qualifies for hedge accounting treatment.
Whether a derivative qualifies for hedge accounting depends upon
it meeting specific criteria used to determine if hedge
accounting is and will remain appropriate for the term of the
derivative. Economic hedges will not necessarily qualify for
hedge accounting treatment. As a result, we are unable to
predict the impact that our risk management decisions may have
on our quarterly and annual operating results.
|
|
|
Competition in wholesale power markets may have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and the
market value of our assets. |
We have numerous competitors in all aspects of our business, and
additional competitors may enter the industry. Because many of
our facilities are old, newer plants owned by our competitors
are often more efficient than our aging plants, which may put
some of our plants at a competitive disadvantage to the extent
50
our competitors are able to consume the same fuel as we consume
at those plants. Over time, our plants may be squeezed out of
their markets, or may be unable to compete with these more
efficient plants.
In our power marketing and commercial operations, we compete on
the basis of our relative skills, financial position and access
to capital with other providers of electric energy in the
procurement of fuel and transportation services, and the sale of
capacity, energy and related products. In order to compete
successfully, we seek to aggregate fuel supplies at competitive
prices from different sources and locations and to efficiently
utilize transportation services from third-party pipelines,
railways and other fuel transporters and transmission services
from electric utilities.
Other companies with which we compete may have greater
liquidity, access to credit and other financial resources, lower
cost structures, more effective risk management policies and
procedures, greater ability to incur losses, longer-standing
relationships with customers, greater potential for
profitability from ancillary services or greater flexibility in
the timing of their sale of generation capacity and ancillary
services than we do.
Our competitors may be able to respond more quickly to new laws
or regulations or emerging technologies, or to devote greater
resources to the construction, expansion or refurbishment of
their power generation facilities than we can. In addition,
current and potential competitors may make strategic
acquisitions or establish cooperative relationships among
themselves or with third parties. Accordingly, it is possible
that new competitors or alliances among current and new
competitors may emerge and rapidly gain significant market
share. There can be no assurance that we will be able to compete
successfully against current and future competitors, and any
failure to do so would have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flow.
|
|
|
Operation of power generation facilities involves
significant risks that could have a material adverse effect on
our revenues and results of operations. |
The ongoing operation of our facilities involves risks that
include the breakdown or failure of equipment or processes,
performance below expected levels of output or efficiency and
the inability to transport our product to our customers in an
efficient manner due to a lack of transmission capacity.
Unplanned outages of generating units, including extensions of
scheduled outages due to mechanical failures or other problems
occur from time to time and are an inherent risk of our
business. Unplanned outages typically increase our operation and
maintenance expenses and may reduce our revenues as a result of
selling fewer MWh or require us to incur significant costs as a
result of running one of our higher cost units or obtaining
replacement power from third parties in the open market to
satisfy our forward power sales obligations. Our inability to
operate our plants efficiently, manage capital expenditures and
costs, and generate earnings and cash flow from our asset-based
businesses in relation to our debt and other obligations could
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.
While we maintain insurance, obtain warranties from vendors and
obligate contractors to meet certain performance levels, the
proceeds of such insurance, warranties or performance guarantees
may not be adequate to cover our lost revenues, increased
expenses or liquidated damages payments should we experience
equipment breakdown or non-performance by contractors or vendors.
|
|
|
Maintenance, expansion and refurbishment of power
generation facilities involve significant risks that could
result in unplanned power outages or reduced output and could
have a material adverse effect on our revenues and results of
operations. |
Many of our facilities are old and are likely to require
periodic upgrading and improvement. Any unexpected failure,
including failure associated with breakdowns, forced outages or
any unanticipated capital expenditures could result in reduced
profitability.
We cannot be certain of the level of capital expenditures that
will be required due to changing environmental and safety laws
and regulations (including changes in the interpretation or
enforcement thereof), needed facility repairs and unexpected
events (such as natural disasters or terrorist attacks). The
51
unexpected requirement of large capital expenditures could have
a material adverse effect on our financial performance and
condition.
If we make any major modifications to our power generation
facilities, we may be required to install the best available
control technology or to achieve the lowest achievable emissions
rate, as such terms are defined under the new source review
provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. Any such modifications
would likely result in substantial additional capital
expenditures.
We may also choose to undertake the repowering, refurbishment or
upgrade of current facilities based on our assessment that such
activity will provide adequate financial returns. Such projects
often require several years of development and capital
expenditures before commencement of commercial operations, and
key assumptions underpinning a decision to make such an
investment may prove incorrect, including assumptions regarding
construction costs, timing, available financing and future fuel
and power prices. The construction, expansion, modification and
refurbishment of power generation facilities involve many
additional risks, including:
|
|
|
|
|
delays in obtaining necessary permits and licenses; |
|
|
|
environmental remediation of soil or groundwater at contaminated
sites; |
|
|
|
interruptions to dispatch at our facilities; |
|
|
|
supply interruptions; |
|
|
|
work stoppages; |
|
|
|
labor disputes; |
|
|
|
weather interferences; |
|
|
|
unforeseen engineering, environmental and geological
problems; and |
|
|
|
unanticipated cost overruns. |
Any of these risks could cause our financial returns on new
investments to be lower than expected, or could cause us to
operate below expected capacity or availability levels, which
could result in lost revenues, increased expenses, higher
maintenance costs and penalties.
|
|
|
Supplier and/or customer concentration at certain of our
facilities may expose us to significant financial credit or
performance risks. |
We often rely on a single contracted supplier or a small number
of suppliers for the provision of fuel, transportation of fuel
and other services required for the operation of certain of our
facilities. If these suppliers cannot perform, we utilize the
marketplace to provide these services. There can be no assurance
that the marketplace can provide these services.
At times, we rely on a single customer or a few customers to
purchase all or a significant portion of a facilitys
output, in some cases under long-term agreements that account
for a substantial percentage of the anticipated revenue from a
given facility. We have hedged a portion of our exposure to
power price fluctuations through forward fixed price power sales
and natural gas price swap agreements. Counterparties to these
agreements may breach or may be unable to perform their
obligations. We may not be able to enter into replacement
agreements on terms as favorable as our existing agreements, or
at all. If we were unable to enter into replacement power
purchase agreements, we would sell our plants power at
market prices. If we were unable to enter into replacement fuel
or fuel transportation purchase agreements, we would seek to
purchase our plants fuel requirements at market prices,
exposing us to market price volatility and the risk that fuel
and transportation may not be available during certain periods
at any price.
In the past several years, a substantial number of companies,
some of which serve as our counterparties from time to time,
have experienced downgrades in their credit ratings. The failure
of any supplier or customer to fulfill its contractual
obligations to us could have a material adverse effect on our
financial results.
52
Consequently, the financial performance of our facilities is
dependent on the credit quality of, and continued performance
by, suppliers and customers.
|
|
|
We rely on power transmission facilities that we do not
own or control and are subject to transmission constraints
within a number of our core regions. If these facilities fail to
provide us with adequate transmission capacity, we may be
restricted in our ability to deliver wholesale electric power to
our customers and we may either incur additional costs or forego
revenues. Conversely, improvements to certain transmission
systems could also reduce revenues. |
We depend on transmission facilities owned and operated by
others to deliver the wholesale power we sell from our power
generation plants to our customers. If transmission is
disrupted, or if the transmission capacity infrastructure is
inadequate, our ability to sell and deliver wholesale power may
be adversely impacted. If a regions power transmission
infrastructure is inadequate, our recovery of wholesale costs
and profits may be limited. If restrictive transmission price
regulation is imposed, the transmission companies may not have
sufficient incentive to invest in expansion of transmission
infrastructure. We also cannot predict whether transmission
facilities will be expanded in specific markets to accommodate
competitive access to those markets.
In addition, in certain of the markets in which we operate,
energy transmission congestion may occur and we may be deemed
responsible for congestion costs if we schedule delivery of
power between congestion zones during times when congestion
occurs between the zones. If we are liable for congestion costs,
our financial results could be adversely affected.
In the California ISO, New York ISO and New England ISO markets,
the company will have a significant amount of generation located
in load pockets making that generation valuable, particularly
with respect to maintaining the reliability of the transmission
grid. Expansion of transmission systems to reduce or eliminate
these load pockets could negatively impact the value or
profitability of our existing facilities in these areas.
|
|
|
Because we own less than a majority of some of our project
investments, we cannot exercise complete control over their
operations. |
We have limited control over the operation of some project
investments and joint ventures because our investments are in
projects where we beneficially own less than a majority of the
ownership interests. We seek to exert a degree of influence with
respect to the management and operation of projects in which we
own less than a majority of the ownership interests by
negotiating to obtain positions on management committees or to
receive certain limited governance rights, such as rights to
veto significant actions. However, we may not always succeed in
such negotiations. We may be dependent on our co-venturers to
operate such projects. Our co-venturers may not have the level
of experience, technical expertise, human resources management
and other attributes necessary to operate these projects
optimally. The approval of co-venturers also may be required for
us to receive distributions of funds from projects or to
transfer our interest in projects.
|
|
|
Future acquisition activities may have adverse
effects. |
We may seek to acquire additional companies or assets in our
industry. The acquisition of power generation companies and
assets is subject to substantial risks, including the failure to
identify material problems during due diligence, the risk of
over-paying for assets and the inability to arrange financing
for an acquisition as may be required or desired. Further, the
integration and consolidation of acquisitions requires
substantial human, financial and other resources and,
ultimately, our acquisitions may not be successfully integrated.
There can be no assurances that any future acquisitions will
perform as expected or that the returns from such acquisitions
will support the indebtedness incurred to acquire them or the
capital expenditures needed to develop them.
53
|
|
|
Our operations are subject to hazards customary to the
power generation industry. We may not have adequate insurance to
cover all of these hazards. |
Power generation involves hazardous activities, including
acquiring, transporting and unloading fuel, operating large
pieces of rotating equipment and delivering electricity to
transmission and distribution systems. In addition to natural
risks such as earthquake, flood, lightning, hurricane and wind,
other hazards, such as fire, explosion, structural collapse and
machinery failure are inherent risks in our operations. These
and other hazards can cause significant personal injury or loss
of life, severe damage to and destruction of property, plant and
equipment, contamination of, or damage to, the environment and
suspension of operations. The occurrence of any one of these
events may result in our being named as a defendant in lawsuits
asserting claims for substantial damages, including for
environmental cleanup costs, personal injury and property damage
and fines and/or penalties. We maintain an amount of insurance
protection that we consider adequate, but we cannot assure you
that our insurance will be sufficient or effective under all
circumstances and against all hazards or liabilities to which we
may be subject. A successful claim for which we are not fully
insured could hurt our financial results and materially harm our
financial condition. Further, due to rising insurance costs and
changes in the insurance markets, we cannot assure you that
insurance coverage will continue to be available at all or at
rates or on terms similar to those presently available to us.
Any losses not covered by insurance could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.
|
|
|
Our business is subject to substantial governmental
regulation and may be adversely affected by liability under, or
any future inability to comply with, existing or future
regulations or requirements. |
Our business is subject to extensive foreign, federal, state and
local laws and regulation. Compliance with the requirements
under these various regulatory regimes may cause us to incur
significant additional costs and failure to comply with such
requirements could result in the shutdown of the non-complying
facility, the imposition of liens, fines and/or civil or
criminal liability.
Public utilities under the Federal Power Act, or FPA, are
required to obtain the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commissions, or FERCs, acceptance of their rate
schedules for wholesale sales of electricity. All of NRGs
non-qualifying facility generating companies and power marketing
affiliates in the United States make sales of electricity in
interstate commerce and are public utilities for purposes of the
FPA. FERC has granted each of NRGs generating and power
marketing companies the authority to sell electricity at
market-based rates. The FERCs orders that grant NRGs
generating and power marketing companies market-based rate
authority reserve the right to revoke or revise that authority
if FERC subsequently determines that NRG can exercise market
power in transmission or generation, create barriers to entry or
engage in abusive affiliate transactions. In addition,
NRGs market-based sales are subject to certain market
behavior rules and, if any of NRGs generating and power
marketing companies were deemed to have violated one of those
rules, they are subject to potential disgorgement of profits
associated with the violation and/or suspension or revocation of
their market-based rate authority. If NRGs generating and
power marketing companies were to lose their market-based rate
authority, such companies would be required to obtain
FERCs acceptance of a
cost-of-service rate
schedule and would become subject to the accounting,
record-keeping and reporting requirements that are imposed on
utilities with cost-based rate schedules. This could have an
adverse effect on the rates NRG charges for power from its
facilities.
We are also affected by changes to market rules, tariffs,
changes in market structures, changes in administrative fee
allocations and changes in market bidding rules that occur in
the existing ISOs. The ISOs that oversee most of the wholesale
power markets impose, and in the future may continue to impose,
price limitations, offer caps, and other mechanisms to address
some of the volatility and the potential exercise of market
power in these markets. These types of price limitations and
other regulatory mechanisms may adversely affect the
profitability of our generation facilities that sell energy and
capacity into the wholesale power markets. In addition, the
regulatory and legislative changes that have recently been
enacted at the federal level and in a number of states in an
effort to promote competition are novel and untested in many
respects. These new approaches to the sale of electric power
have very short operating histories, and it is not yet clear how
they will operate in times of market stress or pressure, given
the extreme volatility and lack of
54
meaningful long-term price history in many of these markets and
the imposition of price limitations by independent system
operators.
|
|
|
Our ownership interest in a nuclear power facility
subjects us to regulations, costs and liabilities uniquely
associated with these types of facilities. |
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or AEA,
operation of STP, of which we indirectly own a 44.0% interest,
is subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
or NRC. Such regulation includes licensing, inspection,
enforcement, testing, evaluation and modification of all aspects
of nuclear reactor power plant design and operation,
environmental and safety performance, technical and financial
qualifications, decommissioning funding assurance and transfer
and foreign ownership restrictions. Our 44.0% share of the
output of STP represents approximately 1,101 MW of
generation capacity.
There are unique risks to owning and operating a nuclear power
facility. These include liabilities related to the handling,
treatment, storage, disposal, transport, release and use of
radioactive materials, particularly with respect to spent
nuclear fuel, and uncertainties regarding the ultimate, and
potential exposure to, technical and financial risks associated
with modifying or decommissioning a nuclear facility. The NRC
could require the shutdown of the plant for safety reasons or
refuse to permit restart of the unit after unplanned or planned
outages. New or amended NRC safety and regulatory requirements
may give rise to additional operation and maintenance costs and
capital expenditures. STP may be obligated to continue storing
spent nuclear fuel if the Department of Energy continues to fail
to meet its contractual obligations to STP made pursuant to the
U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to accept and dispose
of STPs spent nuclear fuel. See Business
Environmental Matters U.S. Federal
Environmental Initiatives Nuclear Waste. Costs
associated with these risks could be substantial and have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow. In addition, to the extent that all or a
part of STP is required by the NRC to permanently or temporarily
shut down or modify its operations, or is otherwise subject to a
forced outage, NRG may incur additional costs to the extent it
is obligated to provide power from more expensive alternative
sources either our own plants, third party
generators or the ERCOT to cover our then existing
forward sale obligations. Such shutdown or modification could
also lead to substantial costs related to the storage and
disposal of radioactive materials and spent nuclear fuel.
NRG and the other owners of STP maintain nuclear property and
nuclear liability insurance coverage as required by law. The
Price-Anderson Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
requires owners of nuclear power plants in the United States to
be collectively responsible for retrospective secondary
insurance premiums for liability to the public arising from
nuclear incidents resulting in claims in excess of the required
primary insurance coverage amount of $300 million per
reactor. The Price-Anderson Act only covers nuclear liability
associated with any accident in the course of operation of the
nuclear reactor, transportation of nuclear fuel to the reactor
site, in the storage of nuclear fuel and waste at the reactor
site and the transportation of the spent nuclear fuel and
nuclear waste from the nuclear reactor. All other non-nuclear
liabilities are not covered. Any substantial retrospective
premiums imposed under the Price-Anderson Act or losses not
covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
|
|
|
We are subject to environmental laws and regulations that
impose extensive and increasingly stringent requirements on our
ongoing operations, as well as potentially substantial
liabilities arising out of environmental contamination. These
environmental requirements and liabilities could adversely
impact our results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows. |
Our business is subject to the environmental laws and
regulations of foreign, federal, state and local authorities. We
must comply with numerous environmental laws and regulations and
obtain numerous governmental permits and approvals to operate
our plants. If we fail to comply with any environmental
requirements that apply to our operations, we could be subject
to administrative, civil and/or criminal liability and fines,
and regulatory agencies could take other actions seeking to
curtail our operations. In addition, when new requirements take
effect or when existing environmental requirements are revised,
reinterpreted or subject to changing enforcement policies, our
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows could be adversely affected.
55
Environmental laws and regulations have generally become more
stringent over time, and we expect this trend to continue. In
particular, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or
USEPA, has recently promulgated regulations requiring additional
reductions in nitrogen oxides, or
NOX
and sulfur dioxide, or
SO2,
emissions, commencing in 2009 and 2010 respectively, and has
also promulgated regulations requiring reductions in mercury
emissions from coal-fired electric generating units, commencing
in 2010 with more substantial reductions in 2018. These
regulatory programs are currently subject to litigation and
reconsideration by the USEPA, which could affect the timing of
our future capital projects. Moreover, certain of the states in
which we operate have promulgated air pollution control
regulations which are more stringent than existing and proposed
federal regulations. Ongoing public concerns about emissions of
SO2,
NOX,
mercury and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power
plants have resulted in proposed laws and regulations at the
federal, state and regional levels that, if they were to take
effect substantially as proposed, would likely apply to our
operations. For example, we could incur substantial costs
pursuant to the proposed multi-state carbon cap-and-trade
program known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or
RGGI, which would apply to the facilities in our Northeast
region. A model rule for implementation of RGGI is expected to
be released within the next few months.
Significant capital expenditures may be required to keep our
facilities compliant with environmental laws and regulations,
and if it is not economical to make those capital expenditures
then we may need to retire or mothball facilities, or restrict
or modify our operations to comply with more stringent standards.
Certain environmental laws impose strict, joint and several
liability for costs required to clean up and restore sites where
hazardous substances have been disposed or otherwise released.
We are generally responsible for all liabilities associated with
the environmental condition of our power generation plants,
including any soil or groundwater contamination that may be
present, regardless of when the liabilities arose and whether
the liabilities are known or unknown, or arose from the
activities of our predecessors or third parties. We are
currently subject to remediation obligations at a number of our
facilities.
|
|
|
The value of our assets is subject to the nature and
extent of decommissioning and remediation obligations applicable
to us. |
Our facilities and related properties may become subject to
decommissioning and/or site remediation obligations that may
require material unplanned expenditures or otherwise materially
affect the value of those assets. The closure or modification of
any of our facilities could lead to substantial liabilities,
including related to the cleanup of any contamination that
occurred during the facilitys operation. While we believe
that we meet, or are performing, all site remediation
obligations currently applicable to our assets (including
through the provision of various forms of financial assurance at
certain facilities at which we are not currently required to
perform remediation), more onerous obligations often apply to
sites where a plant is to be dismantled, which could negatively
affect our ability to economically undertake power
redevelopments or alternate uses at existing power plant sites.
Further, laws and regulations may change to impose material
additional decommissioning and remediation obligations on us in
the future, negatively impacting the value of our assets and/or
our ability to undertake redevelopment projects.
|
|
|
Our business, financial condition and results of
operations could be adversely impacted by strikes or work
stoppages by our unionized employees. |
As of December 31, 2005, approximately 46.0% of the
Companys employees at its U.S. generation plants
would have been covered by collective bargaining agreements. In
the event that our union employees strike, participate in a work
stoppage or slowdown or engage in other forms of labor strife or
disruption, we would be responsible for procuring replacement
labor or we could experience reduced power generation or
outages. Our ability to procure such labor is uncertain.
Strikes, work stoppages or the inability to negotiate future
collective bargaining agreements on favorable terms could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
56
|
|
|
Changes in technology may impair the value of our power
plants. |
Research and development activities are ongoing to provide
alternative and more efficient technologies to produce power,
including fuel cells, clean coal and coal gasification,
micro-turbines, photovoltaic (solar) cells and improvements
in traditional technologies and equipment, such as more
efficient gas turbines. Advances in these or other technologies
could reduce the costs of power production to a level below what
we have currently forecasted, which could adversely affect our
revenue, results of operations or competitive position.
|
|
|
Acts of terrorism could have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows. |
Our generation facilities and the facilities of third parties on
which they rely may be targets of terrorist activities, as well
as events occurring in response to or in connection with them,
that could cause environmental repercussions and/or result in
full or partial disruption of their ability to generate,
transmit, transport or distribute electricity or natural gas.
Strategic targets, such as energy-related facilities, may be at
greater risk of future terrorist activities than other domestic
targets. Any such environmental repercussions or disruption
could result in a significant decrease in revenues or
significant reconstruction or remediation costs, which could
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
|
|
|
Our international investments are subject to additional
risks that our U.S. investments do not have. |
We have investments in power projects in Australia, Germany and
Brazil. International investments are subject to risks and
uncertainties relating to the political, social and economic
structures of the countries in which we invest. Risks
specifically related to our investments in international
projects may include:
|
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in currency valuation; |
|
|
|
currency inconvertibility; |
|
|
|
expropriation and confiscatory taxation; |
|
|
|
restrictions on the repatriation of capital; and |
|
|
|
approval requirements and governmental policies limiting returns
to foreign investors. |
|
|
|
Our plants are the subject of a number of lawsuits filed
by individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos
while working at certain of our facilities. |
Many of our plants have been subject to personal injury claims
arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos. Most of the
claimants who have brought such claims have been third-party
workers who participated in the construction, renovation or
repair of various industrial plants, including power plants.
While many of the claimants have never worked at or near our
plants, some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by
us. While we have been dismissed from many of these lawsuits
without having to make any payment to claimants, we have
incurred and expect to continue to incur costs associated with
these claims. We are also subject to claims for asbestos
exposure in certain of its facilities, as well as claims for
indemnity from previous owners of those facilities. We defend
against these claims aggressively, and, thus, we have incurred
and expect to continue to incur defense costs as a result of
such claims. For further discussion of such claims, see
Business Legal Proceedings. If
asbestos-related claims against us rise significantly or if
insurance currently available for contribution to the payment of
asbestos liabilities becomes unavailable (through insurer
insolvencies, coverage disputes, changes in law or otherwise),
asbestos liabilities could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
57
|
|
|
Our level of indebtedness could adversely affect our
ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations,
expose us to the risk of increased interest rates and limit our
ability to react to changes in the economy or our
industry. |
Our substantial debt could have important consequences,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
increasing our vulnerability to general economic and industry
conditions; |
|
|
|
requiring a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations
to be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on our
indebtedness, therefore reducing our ability to pay dividends to
holders of our preferred or common stock or to use our cash flow
to fund our operations, capital expenditures and future business
opportunities; |
|
|
|
limiting our ability to enter into long-term power sales or fuel
purchases which require credit support; |
|
|
|
exposing us to the risk of increased interest rates because
certain of our borrowings, including borrowings under our new
senior secured credit facility are at variable rates of interest; |
|
|
|
making it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with
respect to our notes; |
|
|
|
placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our
competitors that have less debt; |
|
|
|
limiting our ability to obtain additional financing for working
capital including collateral postings, capital expenditures,
debt service requirements, acquisitions and general corporate or
other purposes; and |
|
|
|
limiting our ability to adjust to changing market conditions and
placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our
competitors who have less debt. |
The indentures for the new notes and our new senior secured
credit facility contain financial and other restrictive
covenants that may limit our ability to engage in activities
that may be in our long-term best interests. Our failure to
comply with those covenants could result in an event of default
which, if not cured or waived, could result in the acceleration
of all of our borrowed indebtedness.
In addition, our ability to arrange financing, either at the
corporate level or at a non-recourse project-level subsidiary,
and the costs of such capital are dependent on numerous factors,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
general economic and capital market conditions; |
|
|
|
credit availability from banks and other financial institutions; |
|
|
|
investor confidence in us, our partners and the regional
wholesale power markets; |
|
|
|
our financial performance and the financial performance of our
subsidiaries; |
|
|
|
our levels of indebtedness and compliance with covenants in debt
agreements; |
|
|
|
maintenance of acceptable credit ratings; |
|
|
|
cash flow; and |
|
|
|
provisions of tax and securities laws that may impact raising
capital. |
We may not be successful in obtaining additional capital for
these or other reasons. The failure to obtain additional capital
from time to time may have a material adverse effect on our
business and operations.
|
|
|
We may not be able to realize the anticipated benefits
from the Texas Genco Acquisition. |
The success of the Acquisition will depend in part on NRGs
ability to consolidate and effectively integrate the Texas Genco
assets, operations and employees into NRG. The integration will
require substantial time and attention from our management. If
the integration takes longer or is more complex or expensive
than anticipated, or if we cannot operate our combined business
as effectively as we anticipate, our operating performance and
profitability could be materially adversely affected.
58
The Texas Genco power generation assets operate in the ERCOT
market, a market in which NRG did not operate before the
Acquisition. Accordingly, we are dependent upon the managers and
employees who were in place at Texas Genco to manage those
assets, and the loss of these key managers or employees could
adversely affect our business.
In addition, as a result of the Acquisition, we have assumed all
of Texas Gencos liabilities. After the Acquisition, we may
learn additional information about Texas Gencos business
that adversely affects us, such as unknown or contingent
liabilities, issues relating to internal controls over financial
reporting and issues relating to compliance with applicable laws.
|
|
|
Because the historical financial information may not be
representative of our results as a combined company or capital
structure after the Acquisition, and NRGs and Texas
Gencos historical financial information are not comparable
to their current financial information, you have limited
financial information on which to evaluate us, NRG and Texas
Genco. |
NRGs financial statements prior to December 5, 2003
are not comparable to its financial statements after that date.
As a result of NRGs emergence from bankruptcy, it is
operating its business with a new capital structure, and is
subject to Fresh Start reporting requirements prescribed by
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States.
As required by Fresh Start reporting, assets and liabilities as
of December 6, 2003 were recorded at fair value, with the
enterprise value being determined in connection with the
reorganization.
Texas Genco did not exist prior to July 19, 2004, and Texas
Genco and its subsidiaries had no operations and no material
activities until December 15, 2004 when Texas Genco
acquired its gas and coal-fired assets. Consequently, Texas
Gencos historical financial information is not comparable
to its current financial information.
NRG and Texas Genco have been operating as separate companies
prior to the Acquisition. We have had no prior history as a
combined entity and our operations have not previously been
managed on a combined basis. The historical financial statements
may not reflect what our results of operations, financial
position and cash flows would have been had we operated on a
combined basis and may not be indicative of what our results of
operations, financial position and cash flows will be in the
future.
|
|
|
Goodwill and/or other intangible assets that we will
record in connection with the Acquisition are subject to
mandatory annual impairment evaluations and as a result, the
combined company could be required to write off some or all of
this goodwill and other intangibles, which may adversely affect
its financial condition and results of operations. |
NRG will account for the Acquisition using the purchase method
of accounting. The purchase price for Texas Genco will be
allocated to identifiable tangible and intangible assets and
assumed liabilities based on estimated fair values at the date
of consummation of the Acquisition. Any unallocated portion of
the purchase price will be allocated to goodwill. In accordance
with Financial Accounting Standard No. 142, Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets, goodwill is not amortized but
is reviewed annually or more frequently for impairment and other
intangibles are also reviewed at least annually or more
frequently, if certain conditions exist, and may be amortized.
Any reduction in or impairment of the value of goodwill or other
intangible assets will result in a charge against earnings which
could materially adversely affect our reported results of
operations and financial position in future periods.
59
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Information
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K includes
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of
the Exchange Act. The words believes,
projects, anticipates,
plans, expects, intends,
estimates and similar expressions are intended to
identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking
statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and
other factors which may cause our actual results, performance
and achievements, or industry results, to be materially
different from any future results, performance or achievements
expressed or implied by such forward-looking statement. These
factors, risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited
to, the factors described under Risks Related to NRG
Energy, Inc. in this Item 1A and to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
General economic conditions, changes in the wholesale power
markets and fluctuations in the cost of fuel or other raw
materials; |
|
|
|
Hazards customary to the power production industry and power
generation operations such as fuel and electricity price
volatility, unusual weather conditions, catastrophic
weather-related or other damage to facilities, unscheduled
generation outages, maintenance or repairs, unanticipated
changes to fossil fuel supply costs or availability due to
higher demand, shortages, transportation problems or other
developments, environmental incidents, or electric transmission
or gas pipeline system constraints and the possibility that we
may not have adequate insurance to cover losses as a result of
such hazards; |
|
|
|
The effectiveness of NRGs risk management policies and
procedures, and the ability of NRGs counterparties to
satisfy their financial commitments; |
|
|
|
Counterparties collateral demands and other factors
affecting NRGs liquidity position and financial condition; |
|
|
|
Our ability to operate its businesses efficiently, manage
capital expenditures and costs tightly (including general and
administrative expenses), and generate earnings and cash flow
from its asset-based businesses in relation to its debt and
other obligations; and |
|
|
|
Our potential inability to enter into contracts to sell power
and procure fuel on terms and prices acceptable to us; |
|
|
|
The liquidity and competitiveness of wholesale markets for
energy commodities; |
|
|
|
Changes in government regulation, including but not limited to
the pending changes of market rules, market structures and
design, rates, tariffs, environmental laws and regulations and
regulatory compliance requirements; |
|
|
|
Price mitigation strategies and other market structures employed
by independent system operators, or ISOs, or regional
transmission organizations, that result in a failure to
adequately compensate our generation units for all of their
costs; |
|
|
|
Our ability to borrow additional funds and access capital
markets, as well as our substantial indebtedness and the
possibility that we may incur additional indebtedness going
forward; |
|
|
|
The success of the business following the acquisition of Texas
Genco LLC; |
|
|
|
Operating and financial restrictions placed on us contained in
the indentures governing our 7.25% and 7.375% unsecured senior
notes due 2014 and 2016, respectively, our new senior secured
credit facility and in debt and other agreements of certain of
our subsidiaries and project affiliates generally; and |
|
|
|
Lack of comparable financial data due to adoption of Fresh Start
reporting. |
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were
made, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or
revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of
new information, future events or otherwise. The foregoing
review of factors that could cause our actual results to differ
materially from those contemplated in any forward-looking
statements included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K should
not be construed as exhaustive.
Item 1B Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
60
Item 2 Properties
Listed below are descriptions of our interests in facilities,
operations and/or projects owned as of December 31, 2005,
including such interests owned through Texas Genco. The MW
figures provided represent nominal summer net megawatt capacity
of power generated as adjusted for the combined companys
ownership position excluding capacity from inactive/mothballed
units as of December 31, 2005. Prior to the Texas Genco
acquisition, our documents referenced the capacity of our
generating equipment using Nameplate, or gross capacity (netted
to reflect ownership position but inclusive of power which was
absorbed internally). The MW numbers included units which are
inactive but still owned by NRG. However, with the addition of
the Texas assets and to provide a consistent measure across the
fleet, NRG will now provide summer net MW capacity for active
units only which is more representative of capacity available
for sale in the marketplace.
Independent Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation | |
|
|
|
|
Purchaser/Power |
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
|
Name and Location of Facility |
|
Market |
|
% Owned | |
|
(MW) | |
|
Primary Fuel Type |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Texas Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Parish, Thompsons, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
2,463 |
|
|
Low Sulfur Coal |
Limestone, Jewett, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
1,614 |
|
|
Lignite/Low Sulfur Coal |
South Texas Project, Bay City,
TX(1)
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
44.00 |
% |
|
|
1,101 |
|
|
Nuclear |
Cedar Bayou, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
1,498 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
T. H. Wharton, Houston, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
1,025 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
W. A. Parish (Natural gas), Thompsons, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
1,191 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
S. R. Bertron, Deer Park, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
844 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Greens Bayou, Houston, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
760 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
San Jacinto, LaPorte, TX
|
|
ERCOT |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
162 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Northeast Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oswego, New York
|
|
NYISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
1,634 |
|
|
Oil |
Arthur Kill, New York
|
|
NYISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
841 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Middletown, Connecticut
|
|
ISO-NE |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
770 |
|
|
Oil |
Indian River, Delaware
|
|
PJM |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
737 |
|
|
Coal |
Astoria Gas Turbines, New York
|
|
NYISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
553 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Dunkirk, New York
|
|
NYISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
522 |
|
|
Coal |
Huntley, New York
|
|
NYISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
552 |
|
|
Coal |
Montville, Connecticut
|
|
ISO-NE |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
497 |
|
|
Oil |
Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut
|
|
ISO-NE |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
342 |
|
|
Oil |
Devon, Connecticut
|
|
ISO-NE |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
124 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Vienna, Maryland
|
|
PJM |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
170 |
|
|
Oil |
Somerset, Massachusetts
|
|
ISO-NE |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
127 |
|
|
Coal |
Connecticut Jet Power, Connecticut
|
|
ISO-NE |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
104 |
|
|
Oil |
Conemaugh, Pennsylvania
|
|
PJM |
|
|
3.72 |
% |
|
|
64 |
|
|
Coal |
Keystone, Pennsylvania
|
|
PJM |
|
|
3.72 |
% |
|
|
63 |
|
|
Coal |
61
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation | |
|
|
|
|
Purchaser/Power |
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
|
Name and Location of Facility |
|
Market |
|
% Owned | |
|
(MW) | |
|
Primary Fuel Type |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
South Central Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Cajun II,
Louisiana(2)
|
|
SERC-Entergy |
|
|
86.00 |
% |
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
Coal |
Bayou Cove, Louisiana
|
|
SERC-Entergy |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
300 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Big Cajun I, Louisiana
|
|
SERC-Entergy |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
210 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Big Cajun I, Louisiana
|
|
SERC-Entergy |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
220 |
|
|
Natural Gas/Oil |
Sterlington, Louisiana
|
|
SERC-Entergy |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
176 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Western Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encina, California
|
|
Cal ISO |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
483 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
El Segundo Power, California
|
|
Cal ISO |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
335 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
San Diego Combustion Turbines, California
|
|
Cal ISO |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
86 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Saguaro Power Co., Nevada
|
|
WECC |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
46 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Chowchilla, California
|
|
Cal ISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
49 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Red Bluff, California
|
|
Cal ISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
45 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Other North America Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audrain(3)
|
|
MISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
577 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Rockford I, Illinois
|
|
PJM |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
310 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Rocky Road Power, Illinois
(3)
|
|
PJM |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
165 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Rockford II, Illinois
|
|
PJM |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
160 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Dover, Delaware
|
|
PJM |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
104 |
|
|
Natural Gas/Coal |
Power Smith Cogeneration, Oklahoma
|
|
SPP |
|
|
6.25 |
% |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Ilion, New
York(3)
|
|
NYISO |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
58 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
James River, Virginia
|
|
SERC TVA |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
55 |
|
|
Coal |
Cadillac,
Michigan(3)
|
|
MISO |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
19 |
|
|
Wood |
Paxton Creek Cogeneration, Pennsylvania
|
|
PJM |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Australia Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flinders, South Australia
|
|
South Australian Pool |
|
|
100.00 |
% |
|
|
700 |
|
|
Coal |
Gladstone Power Station, Queensland
|
|
Enertrade/Boyne Smelters |
|
|
37.50 |
% |
|
|
605 |
|
|
Coal |
Other International Region:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schkopau Power Station, Germany
|
|
Vattenfall Europe |
|
|
41.90 |
% |
|
|
400 |
|
|
Coal |
MIBRAG mbH,
Germany(4)
|
|
ENVIA/MIBRAG Mines |
|
|
50.00 |
% |
|
|
55 |
|
|
Coal |
Itiquira Energetica, Brazil
|
|
COPEL |
|
|
99.20 |
% |
|
|
156 |
|
|
Hydro |
|
|
(1) |
For the nature of our interest and various limitations on our
interest, please read Item 1
Business Texas Facilities section. |
|
(2) |
Units 1 and 2 owned 100%, Unit 3 owned 58% |
|
(3) |
Committed to sell or may sell or dispose of in 2006 |
|
(4) |
Primarily a coal mining facility |
62
Thermal Energy Production and Transmission Facilities and
Resource Recovery Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% | |
|
|
Name and Location of |
|
Year of | |
|
|
|
Ownership | |
|
Thermal Energy |
Facility |
|
Acquisition | |
|
Generating Capacity(1) |
|
Interest | |
|
Purchaser/MSW Supplier |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
NRG Energy Center
Minneapolis, MN
|
|
|
1993 |
|
|
Steam: 1,203 mmBtu/hr., (353 MWt) Chilled Water: 41,630
tons (146 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Approx. 100 steam customers and 47 chilled water customers |
NRG Energy Center San
Francisco, CA
|
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Steam: 482 mmBtu/Hr. (141 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Approx. 165 steam customers |
NRG Energy Center
Harrisburg, PA
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Steam: 440 mmBtu/hr. (129 MWt) Chilled water: 2,400 tons
(8 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Approx. 265 steam customers and 3 chilled water customers |
NRG Energy Center
|
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Steam: 266 mmBtu/hr. (78 MWt) Chilled water: 12,580 tons
(44 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Approx. 25 steam and 25 chilled water customers |
NRG Energy Center San
Diego, CA
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Chilled water: 7,425 tons (26 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Approx. 20 chilled water customers |
NRG Energy Center St.
Paul, MN
|
|
|
1992 |
|
|
Steam: 430 mmBtu/hr. (126 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Rock-Tenn Company |
Camas Power Boiler,
Washington
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Steam: 200 mm Btu/hr. (59 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Georgia-Pacific Corp. |
NRG Energy Center
Dover, DE
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Steam: 190 mmBtu/hr. (56 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Kraft Foods Inc. |
NRG Energy Center Oak
Park Heights, MN
|
|
|
1992 |
|
|
Steam: 200 mmBtu/Hr. (59 MWt) |
|
|
100% |
|
|
Andersen Corp., MN Correctional Facility |
|
|
(1) |
Thermal production and transmission capacity is based on 1,000
Btus per pound of steam production or transmission capacity. The
unit mmBtu is equal to one million Btus. |
Listed below are descriptions of our significant resource
recovery assets as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% | |
|
|
|
|
Date of | |
|
|
|
Ownership | |
|
|
Name and Location of Facility |
|
Acquisition | |
|
Processing Capacity(1) | |
|
Interest | |
|
MSW Supplier |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Newport,
MN(1)
|
|
|
1993 |
|
|
|
MSW: 1,500 tons/day |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Ramsey and Washington Counties |
Elk River,
MN(2)
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
|
MSW: 1,500 tons/day |
|
|
|
85 |
% |
|
Anoka, Hennepin and Sherburne Counties; Tri- County Solid Waste
Management Commissioner |
|
|
(1) |
The Newport facilities are strictly related to garbage-sorting
facilities. |
|
(2) |
For the Elk River facility, NRGs 85% interest is related
strictly to garbage-sorting facilities. |
Other Properties
In addition, we own various real property and facilities
relating to our generation assets, other vacant real property
unrelated to our generation assets, interests in other
construction projects in various states of completion and
properties not used for operational purposes. We believe we have
satisfactory title to our plants and facilities in accordance
with standards generally accepted in the electric power
industry, subject to exceptions that, in our opinion, would not
have a material adverse effect on the use or value of our
portfolio.
We lease our corporate offices at 211 Carnegie Center,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540 and various other office spaces.
63
Item 3 Legal Proceedings
California Electricity and Related Litigation
In re: Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Litigation,
MDL 1405, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California. The cases included in this proceeding are as
follows:
|
|
|
Pamela R Gordon, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v Reliant Energy, Inc. et al., Case
No. 758487, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego (filed on November 27, 2000).
Ruth Hendricks, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated and On Behalf of the General Public v.
Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. et al., Case
No. 758565, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego (filed November 29, 2000).
The People of the State of California, by and through
San Francisco City Attorney Louise H. Renne v. Dynegy
Power Marketing, Inc. et al., Case No. 318189,
Superior Court of California, San Francisco
County(filed January 18, 2001). Pier 23
Restaurant, A California Partnership, On Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated v PG&E Energy Trading
et al., Case No. 318343, Superior Court of
California, San Francisco County(filed January 24,
2001). Sweetwater Authority, et al. v. Dynegy,
Inc. et al., Case No. 760743, Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego(filed January 16,
2001). Cruz M Bustamante, individually, and Barbara
Matthews, individually, and on behalf of the general public and
as a representative taxpayer suit, v. Dynegy Inc.
et al., inclusive. Case No. BC249705, Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (filed May 2, 2001). |
NRG Energy is a defendant in all of the above referenced cases.
Several of WCPs operating subsidiaries are also defendants
in the Bustamante case. The cases allege unfair
competition, market manipulation and price fixing and all seek
treble damages, restitution and injunctive relief. In December
2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California found that federal jurisdiction was absent in the
district court, and remanded the cases back to state court. A
notice of appeal was filed and on December 8, 2004, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
District Court in most respects. On March 5, 2005, the
Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing and thereafter
remanded the cases to San Diego Superior Court. NRG was
dismissed on July 22, 2005. The remaining defendants
including the WCP subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss based
on the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption which was
granted on October 3, 2005. Although a judgment of
dismissal with prejudice was entered on October 5, 2005,
the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 2,
2005, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Where WCP or its subsidiaries are named, Dynegy is defending the
named parties pursuant to an indemnification agreement.
Bustamante v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
et al., No. BC 235598, California Superior
Court, Los Angeles County (filed November 20, 2002, and
amended in 2003). This putative class action alleges that the
defendants attempted to manipulate gas indexes by reporting
false and fraudulent trades. Named defendants in the suit
include several of WCPs operating subsidiaries. Dynegy is
defending the WCP subsidiaries pursuant to an indemnification
agreement. The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement,
civil fines, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys
fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants
motion for summary judgment is pending.
Jerry Egger, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 809822, Superior Court of
California, San Diego County (filed May 1, 2003).
This putative class action alleges violations of
Californias antitrust law, as well as unlawful and unfair
business practices and seeks treble damages, restitution and
injunctive relief. The named defendants include WCP and several
of its operating subsidiaries. NRG Energy is not named. This
case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and the defendants have moved
to have this case included as Multi-District Litigation along
with the above referenced cases. On February 19, 2004, the
court stayed the case. Dynegys counsel is defending Dynegy
and WCP and its subsidiaries in this case pursuant to an
indemnification agreement. The defendants expect to seek
dismissal of this case during 2006.
Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc., on behalf of Itself and all
others similarly situated v. Dynegy, Inc. Holding Co., West
Coast Power, LLC, et al., Case No. CIV.S-03-2346
DFL GGH, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California(filed November 10, 2003). This putative
class action alleges violations of the federal Sherman and
64
Clayton Acts and state antitrust law. In addition to naming WCP
and Dynegy, Inc. Holding Co., the complaint names numerous
industry participants, as well as unnamed
co-conspirators. The complaint alleges that defendants
conspired to manipulate the spot price and basis differential of
natural gas with respect to the California market. The complaint
seeks unspecified amounts of damages, including a trebling of
plaintiffs and the putative classs actual damages.
On April 18, 2005, the court granted defendants motion to
dismiss based on the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption.
On May 17, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dynegy is
defending WCP pursuant to an indemnification agreement.
City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Light
Division, v. American Electric Power Service Corporation,
et al., U.S. District Court, Western
District of Washington, Case No. C04-5325 RBL (filed
June 16, 2004). The complaint names over 50 defendants,
including WCPs four operating subsidiaries and various
Dynegy entities. The complaint also names both us and WCP as
Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators. Plaintiff alleges a
conspiracy to violate the federal Sherman Act by withholding
power generation from, and/or inflating the apparent demand for
power in markets in California and elsewhere. Plaintiff claims
damages in excess of $175 million. After the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on February 11, 2005, the court
granted defendants motion to dismiss the case based on the filed
rate doctrine and federal preemption. On March 21, 2005,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dynegy is defending WCP and its
subsidiaries pursuant to an indemnification agreement.
Fairhaven Power Company v. Encana Corporation,
et al., Case No. CIV-F-04-6256 (OWW/ LJO),
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
California(filed September 22, 2004),
Abelman v. Encana, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Case No. 04-CV-6684
(filed December 13, 2004); Utility
Savings v. Reliant, et al., U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of California, (filed
November 29, 2004). These putative class actions named WCP
and Dynegy Holding Co., Inc. among the numerous defendants. The
Complaints alleged violations of the federal Sherman Act, and
Californias antitrust and unfair competition law as well
as unjust enrichment. The Complaints sought a determination of
class action status, a trebling of unspecified damages,
statutory, punitive or exemplary damages, restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, a constructive trust, and costs
and attorneys fees. On December 19, 2005, the court
granted defendants notice to dismiss based upon the filed rate
doctrine and federal preemption. Dynegy is defending WCP
pursuant to an indemnification agreement. On February 2,
2006, Dynegy settled the case on behalf of itself and WCP. A
motion for approval of this settlement is expected to be filed
by the plaintiffs by March 30, 2006.
In Re: Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Master File
No. 03 CV 6186(VM)(AJP), U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York. West Coast Power, or WCP, and Dynegy
Marketing and Trade are among numerous defendants accused of
manipulating gas index publications and prices in violation of
the federal Commodity Exchange Act, or CEA, in the following
consolidated cases: Cornerstone Propane Partners,
LP v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 03 CV 6186 (S.D.N.Y. filed August 18, 2003);
Calle Gracey v. American Electric Power Co., Inc.,
et al., Case No. 03 CV 7750 (S.D.N.Y. filed
Oct. 1, 2003); Cornerstone Propane Partners,
LP v. Coral Energy Resources, LP, et al., Case
No. 03 CV 8320 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 21, 2003); and
Viola v. Reliant Energy Servs., et al., Case
No. 03 CV 9039 (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 14, 2003).
Plaintiffs, in their Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint dated October 14, 2004, allege that the
defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate and inflate natural
gas prices. The plaintiffs seek class action status for their
lawsuit, unspecified actual damages for violations of the CEA
and costs and attorneys fees. On September 30, 2005,
the court granted Plaintiffs class action certification. On
November 2, 2005, Dynegy entered into a settlement
agreement with Plaintiffs that also resolves claims against the
WCP subsidiaries. The settlement is awaiting court approval.
Dynegy Marketing and Trade is defending WCP in these proceedings
pursuant to an indemnification agreement.
ABAG Publicly Owned Energy Resources v. Sempra
Energy, et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case
No. RG04186098, filed November 10, 2004;
Cruz Bustamante v. Williams Energy Services,
et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case
No. BC285598, filed June 28, 2004;
City & County of San Francisco,
et al. v. Sempra Energy, et al.,
San Diego County Superior Court, Case
No. GIC832539, filed June 8, 2004; City of
San Diego v. Sempra Energy, et al.,
San Diego County Superior Court, Case
No. GIC839407, filed
65
December 1, 2004; County of Alameda v. Sempra
Energy, Alameda County Superior Court, Case
No. RG041282878, filed October 29, 2004;
County of San Diego v. Sempra Energy,
et al., San Diego County Superior Court, Case
No. GIC833371, filed July 28, 2004; County
of San Mateo v. Sempra Energy, et al.,
San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. CIV443882,
filed December 23, 2004; County of
Santa Clara v. Sempra Energy, et al.,
San Diego County Superior Court, Case
No. GIC832538, filed July 8, 2004;
Nurserymens Exchange, Inc. v. Sempra Energy,
et al., San Mateo County Superior Court, Case
No. CIV442605, filed October 21, 2004;
Older v. Sempra Energy, et al.,
San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC835457,
filed December 8, 2004; Owens-Brockway
Glass Container, Inc. v. Sempra Energy, et al.,
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG0412046,
filed December 30, 2004; Sacramento Municipal Utility
District v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Sacramento
County Superior Court, Case No. 04AS04689, filed
November 19, 2004; School Project for Utility Rate
Reduction v. Sempra Energy, et al.,
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG04180958,
filed October 19, 2004; Tamco,
et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al.,
San Diego County Superior Court, Case
No. GIC840587, filed December 29, 2004;
Utility Savings & Refund Services, LLP v.
Reliant Energy Services, Inc., et al.,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California,
Case No. 04-6626, filed November 30, 2004;
Pabco Building Products v. Dynegy et al.,
San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC 856187,
filed November 22, 2005; The Board of Trustees of
California State University v. Dynegy et al.,
San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC 856188,
filed November 22, 2005.
The defendants in all of the above referenced cases include WCP
and various Dynegy entities. NRG is not a defendant. The
Complaints allege that defendants attempted to manipulate
natural gas prices in California, and allege violations of
Californias antitrust law, conspiracy, and unjust
enrichment. The relief sought in all of these cases includes
treble damages, restitution and injunctive relief. The
Complaints assert that WCP is a joint venture between Dynegy and
NRG, but that Dynegy Marketing and Trade handled all of the
administrative services and commodity related concerns of WCP.
The cases are presently being consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in San Diego County Superior Court.
Defendants motion to dismiss was denied by the Court on
June 22, 2005, and the cases are in discovery. Dynegy is
defending WCP pursuant to an indemnification agreement.
|
|
|
California Electricity and Related Litigation
Indemnification |
On December 27, 2005, NRG entered into a purchase and sale
agreement to acquire Dynegys 50% ownership interest in WCP
Holdings to become the sole owner of the WCP power plants. The
transaction, which is subject to regulatory approval, is
expected to close in the first quarter of 2006. Pursuant to the
indemnification agreement in the purchase and sale agreement, in
the above referenced cases relating to natural gas, Dynegy is
defending WCP and/or its subsidiaries and will be the
responsible party for any loss. In the above referenced cases
relating to electricity, Dynegys counsel is representing
it and WCP and/or its subsidiaries with Dynegy and WCP each
responsible for half of the costs and each party responsible for
half of any loss. Where NRG is named as a party in the above
referenced electricity cases, it is defending the case, bears
its own costs of defense, and is responsible for any loss. Any
new cases filed within these three categories of cases would be
handled similarly.
|
|
|
NRG Bankruptcy Cap on California Claims |
On November 21, 2003, in conjunction with confirmation of
the NRG plan of reorganization, we reached an agreement with the
Attorney General and the State of California, generally, whereby
for purposes of distributions, if any, to be made to the State
of California under the NRG plan of reorganization, the
liquidated amount of any and all allowed claims shall not exceed
$1.35 billion in the aggregate. The agreement neither
affects our right to object to these claims on any and all
grounds nor admits any liability whatsoever. We further agreed
to waive any objection to the liquidation of these claims in a
non-bankruptcy forum having proper jurisdiction. On
February 1, 2006, NRG filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York a Supplement to
Objection to Claims filed by Oscars Photolab, claiming on behalf
of Itself and All Other Similarly Stated California Business and
Residential Ratepayers. Therein, NRG requested an order
disallowing and expunging these proofs of claim.
66
There are a number of proceedings in which WCP subsidiaries are
parties, which are either pending before FERC or on appeal from
FERC to various U.S. Courts of Appeal. These cases involve,
among other things, allegations of physical withholding, a
FERC-established price mitigation plan determining maximum rates
for wholesale power transactions in certain spot markets, and
the enforceability of, and obligations under, various contracts
with, among others, the California Independent System Operator,
or CDWR, and the State of California and certain of its agencies
and departments. The CDWR claim involves a February 2002
complaint filed by the State of California demanding that FERC
abrogate the CDWR contract between the State and subsidiaries of
WCP and seeking refunds associated with the revenues collected
by WCP from the CDWR. In 2003, FERC rejected the States
complaint and subsequently denied rehearing. The State appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where
all briefs were filed and oral argument was held on
December 8, 2004. Pursuant to the December 27, 2005
purchase and sale agreement between NRG and Dynegy regarding the
WCP power plants, we agreed to indemnify Dynegy with respect to
the CDWR claim. However, to the effect any loss incurred is
found to have resulted from Dynegys gross negligence or
willful misconduct, then any such loss shall instead be shared
evenly between Dynegy and us. The purchase and sale agreement is
subject to regulatory approval and is expected to close in the
first quarter of 2006.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 01-1503.
Consolidated Edison and others petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of
certain FERC orders in which FERC refused to order a
re-determination of prices in the New York Independent System
Operator, or NYISO, operating reserve markets for the period
January 29, 2000, to March 27, 2000. On
November 7, 2003, the Court issued a decision which
questioned whether that the NYISOs method of pricing
spinning reserves violated the NYISO tariff. The Court also
required FERC to determine whether the exclusion from the
non-spinning market of a generating facility known as
Blenheim-Gilboa and resources located in western New York also
constituted a tariff violation and/or whether these exclusions
enabled NYISO to use its Temporary Extraordinary Procedure, or
TEP, authority to require refunds. On March 4, 2005, FERC
issued an order stating that no refunds would be required for
the tariff violation associated with the pricing of spinning
reserves. In the order, FERC also stated that the exclusion of
the Blenheim-Gilboa facility and western reserves from the
non-spinning market was not a market flaw and NYISO was correct
not to use its TEP authority to revise the prices in this
market. A motion for rehearing of the Order was denied by FERC
on November 17, 2005. On January 13, 2006, the
petitioners filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. Based on the
November 17, 2005 denial, we now deem the risk of loss to
be remote.
Connecticut Light & Power Company v. NRG
Power Marketing, Inc., Docket No. 3:01-CV-2373
(AWT), U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
(filed on November 28, 2001). Connecticut
Light & Power Company, or CL&P, sought recovery of
amounts it claimed it was owed for congestion charges under the
terms of an October 29, 1999, contract between the parties.
CL&P withheld approximately $30 million from amounts
owed to NRG Power Marketing, Inc., or PMI, and PMI
counterclaimed. CL&P filed its motion for summary judgment
to which PMI filed a response on March 21, 2003. By reason
of the stay issued by the bankruptcy court, the court has not
ruled on the pending motion. On November 6, 2003, the
parties filed a joint stipulation for relief from the stay in
order to allow the proceeding to go forward that was promptly
granted. PMI cannot estimate at this time the overall exposure
for congestion charges for the full term of the contract.
Connecticut Light & Power Company v. NRG
Energy, Inc., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket
No. EL03-10-000-Station
Service Dispute (filed October 9, 2002); Binding
Arbitration. On July 1, 1999, Connecticut
Light & Power Company, or CL&P, and the Company
agreed that we would purchase certain CL&P generating
facilities. The transaction closed on December 14, 1999,
whereupon NRG Energy took ownership of the facilities. CL&P
began billing NRG Energy for station service power and delivery
services provided to the facilities and NRG Energy refused to
pay asserting that the facilities self-supplied their station
service needs. On October 9, 2002, Northeast Utilities
Services Company, on behalf of itself and CL&P, filed a
complaint at FERC seeking an order requiring NRG Energy to pay
for station service and delivery services. On December 20,
2002, FERC issued an Order finding that at times when NRG Energy
is
67
not able to self-supply its station power needs, there is a sale
of station power from a third-party and retail charges apply.
CL&P renewed its demand for payment which was again refused
by NRG Energy. In August 2003, the parties agreed to submit the
dispute to binding arbitration. The parties each selected one
respective arbitrator. A neutral arbitrator cannot be selected
until the party-appointed arbitrators have been given a mutually
agreed upon description of the dispute, which has yet to occur.
Once the neutral arbitrator is selected, a decision is required
within 90 days unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The
potential loss inclusive of amounts paid to CL&P and accrued
could exceed $5 million.
New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) v.
Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Case Nos.03-40846(L) and 03-40848
(CON), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In
2000, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, or NYSDEC, issued a NOV to the prior owner of the
Huntley and Dunkirk stations. After an unsuccessful challenge to
the stations Title V air quality permits by NYPIRG,
it appealed. On October 24, 2005, the Second Circuit held
that, during the Title V permitting process for the two
stations, the 2000 NOV should have been sufficient for the
NYSDEC to have made a finding that the stations were out of
compliance. Accordingly, the court stated that the EPA should
have objected to the Title V permits on that basis and the
permits should have included compliance schedules. On
June 3, 2005, the consent decree among NYSDEC, Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation and NRG was entered in federal court,
settling the substantive issues discussed by the Second Circuit
in its decision. NYSDEC is in the process of incorporating the
consent decree obligations into the Huntley and Dunkirk
Title V permits so as to make them permit conditions, an
action we believe is supported by the decision. On
January 12, 2006, the NYSDEC, the EPA, and NRG filed
individual petitions for rehearing with the Second Circuit. On
January 31, 2006, the court denied the petitions for
re-hearing filed by the NYSDEC and the EPA. NRGs petition
for review en banc remains pending.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation v. Dunkirk Power
LLC, NRG Dunkirk Operations, Inc., Huntley Power LLC, NRG
Huntley Operations, Inc., Oswego Power LLC and NRG Oswego
Operations, Inc., Supreme Court, Erie County, Index
No. 1-2000-8681 Station Service Dispute
(filed October 2, 2000). NiMo sought to recover damages
less payments received through the date of judgment, as well as
additional amounts for electric service provided to the Dunkirk
Plant. NiMo claimed that we failed to pay retail tariff amounts
for utility services commencing on or about June 11, 1999,
and continuing to September 18, 2000, and thereafter. NiMo
alleged breach of contract, suit on account, violation of
statutory duty, and unjust enrichment claims. On October 8,
2002, a Stipulation and Order was entered staying this action
pending resolution by FERC of some or all of the disputes in the
action. The potential loss inclusive of amounts paid to NiMo and
accrued is approximately $26 million.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation v. Huntley Power
LLC, NRG Huntley Operations, Inc., NRG Dunkirk Operations, Inc.,
Dunkirk Power LLC, Oswego Harbor Power LLC, and NRG Oswego
Operations, Inc., Case Filed November 26, 2002
in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. EL
03-27-000. This is the companion action to the above
referenced action filed by NiMo at FERC asserting the same
claims and legal theories. On November 19, 2004, FERC
denied NiMos petition and ruled that the Huntley, Dunkirk
and Oswego plants could net their service station obligations
over a 30 calendar day period from the day NRG Energy acquired
the facilities. In addition, FERC ruled that neither NiMo nor
the New York Public Service Commission could impose a retail
delivery charge on the NRG facilities because they are
interconnected to transmission and not to distribution. On
April 22, 2005, FERC denied NiMos motion for
rehearing and NiMo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit . On May 12, 2005, the
court consolidated the appeal with several pending station
service disputes involving NiMo.
Itiquira Energetica, S.A. Our Brazilian project
company, Itiquira Energetica S.A., the owner of a 156 MW
hydro project in Brazil, is in arbitration with the former EPC
contractor for the project, Inepar Industria e Construcoes, or
Inepar. The dispute was commenced by Itiquira in
September of 2002 and pertains to certain matters arising under
the former engineering procurement and construction contract
between the parties. Itiquira sought Real 140 million and
asserted that Inepar breached the contract. Inepar sought Real
39 million and alleged that Itiquira breached the contract.
On September 2, 2005, the arbitration panel ruled in favor
of Itiquira, awarding it Real 139 million and Inepar Real
4.7 million. Due to interest accrued from the commencement
of the arbitration to the award date, Itiquiras award is
increased to
68
approximately Real 227 million (U.S. $97 million,
based on conversion rates as of December 31, 2005). On
December 21, 2005, Inepars request for clarification
of the arbitration panels decision was denied. Itiquira has
commenced the lengthy process in Brazil to execute on the
arbitral award. We are unable to predict the outcome of this
execution process.
CFTC Trading Inquiry. On July 1, 2004, the
CFTC filed a civil complaint against us in Minnesota federal
district court, alleging false reporting of natural gas trades
from August 2001 to May 2002, and seeking an injunction against
future violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. On
July 23, 2004, we filed a motion with the bankruptcy court
to enforce the injunction provisions of the NRG plan of
reorganization against the CFTC. Thereafter, we filed with the
Minnesota federal district court a motion to dismiss. On
November 17, 2004, a Bankruptcy Court hearing was held on
the CFTCs motion to reinstate its expunged bankruptcy
claim, and on our motion to enforce the injunction contained in
our plan of reorganization in order to preclude the CFTC from
continuing its Minnesota federal court action. On March 16,
2005, the federal district court in Minnesota adopted the
magistrate judges December 6, 2004, report and
recommendations and dismissed the case. On May 13, 2005,
the CFTC filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and its brief on August 9,
2005. On September 29, 2005, NRG replied and on
October 28, 2005, the CFTC filed its reply brief. The
parties are awaiting an argument date. The Bankruptcy Court has
yet to schedule a hearing or rule on the CFTCs pending
motion to reinstate its expunged claim.
Texas Commercial Energy v. TXU Energy, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04-40962 U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas Corpus Christi
Division. This lawsuit was filed against us,
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., Reliant Energy, Inc., Reliant Electric
Solutions, LLC, several other CenterPoint Energy and Reliant
Energy subsidiaries, and a number of other participants in the
ERCOT market. The plaintiff, a retail electricity provider in
the Texas market served by ERCOT, alleged that the defendants
conspired to illegally fix and artificially increase the price
of electricity in violation of state and federal antitrust laws
and committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The lawsuit
sought damages in excess of $500 million, exemplary
damages, treble damages, interest, costs of suit and
attorneys fees. In June 2004, the court dismissed
plaintiffs claims on jurisdictional grounds. In
July , 2004, the plaintiff
filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower courts
decision in June 2005. The plaintiff moved for a rehearing en
banc which was subsequently denied. On January 9, 2006, the
U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs petition for
certiorari thereby ending recourse.
Asbestos Litigation. Several of our plants are the
subject of a number of lawsuits filed against numerous
defendants by a large number of individuals who claim personal
injury due to alleged exposure to asbestos while working at
plant sites primarily in Texas. The overwhelming majority of
these claimants are third party contractor or sub-contractors
who participated in the construction, renovation, or repair of
various industrial plants, including power plants. As of
December 31, 2005, there were 3,803 claims pending in
Texas. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2005, there
were 268 claims filed, 146 claims settled, 1,261 claims
dismissed or otherwise resolved with no payment, and the average
settlement amount was approximately $3,600. While ultimate
financial responsibility for uninsured losses relating to
asbestos claims has been assumed by us, CenterPoint Energy has
agreed to continue to defend such claims to the extent they are
covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject
to reimbursement of the costs of such defense from us. To date,
costs of settlement and defense have not been material and a
portion of the payments in respect of these claims have been
offset by insurance recoveries.
On May 19, 2005, amendments to the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code and other state codes were signed into law by the
Governor of Texas. The law will make it more difficult for
persons claiming personal injuries due to alleged exposure to
asbestos to continue to pursue their claims when there is no
medical evidence of an actual physical impairment caused by
exposure to asbestos. The law precludes persons whose claims
have not been adjudicated by September 1, 2005, from
pursuing or advancing their claims until they have produced a
report by a board-certified physician of an actual physical
impairment caused by exposure to asbestos. In addition, Congress
is currently considering the proposed Fairness in Asbestos
Injury Resolution Act of 2005, which, if it becomes law, would
require asbestos defendants and insurers to make payments into a
privately-funded national asbestos compensation fund. Under the
bill as currently drafted, any payments made by us would not be
offset by any insurance recoveries.
69
In addition to the foregoing, we are parties to other litigation
or legal proceedings. See Market Developments in the
various regions in Item 1 Business
Power Generation for additional discussion on regulatory legal
proceedings.
The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the legal
proceedings and investigations described above and intends to
defend them vigorously. However, litigation is inherently
subject to many uncertainties. There can be no assurance that
additional litigation will not be filed against the Company or
its subsidiaries in the future asserting similar or different
legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages
and relief. Unless specified above, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome these legal proceedings and investigations
may have or reasonably estimate the scope or amount of any
associated costs and potential liabilities. An unfavorable
outcome in one or more of these proceedings could have a
material impact on the Companys consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company also
has indemnity rights for some of these proceedings to reimburse
the Company for certain legal expenses and to offset certain
amounts deemed to be owed in the event of an unfavorable
litigation outcome.
Disputed Claims Reserve
As part of the NRG plan of reorganization, we have funded a
disputed claims reserve for the satisfaction of certain general
unsecured claims that were disputed claims as of the effective
date of the plan. Under the terms of the plan, as such claims
are resolved, the claimants are paid from the reserve on the
same basis as if they had been paid out in the bankruptcy. To
the extent the aggregate amount required to be paid on the
disputed claims exceeds the amount remaining in the funded
claims reserve, we will be obligated to provide additional cash
and common stock to the satisfy the claims. Any excess funds in
the disputed claims reserve will be reallocated to the creditor
pool for the pro rata benefit of all allowed claims. The
contributed common stock and cash in the reserves is held by an
escrow agent to complete the distribution and settlement
process. Since we have surrendered control over the common stock
and cash provided to the disputed claims reserve, we recognized
the issuance of the common stock as of December 6, 2003 and
removed the cash amounts from our balance sheet. Similarly, we
removed the obligations relevant to the claims from our balance
sheet when the common stock was issued and cash contributed.
The face amount of the remaining unresolved claims is
approximately $35 million, plus unresolved claims relating
to the California power crisis in 2000-2001 and other claims of
indefinite amount, but the Company estimates that the actual
amount of these claims, once settled, will be less than $35
million. Based on these estimates, the Company believes that in
order to assure sufficient funds to satisfy all remaining
disputed claims the reserve needs to retain approximately
$7 million in cash and approximately 650,000 shares of
common stock. The reserve currently holds cash and stock in
excess of these amounts, and the Company intends to make a
supplemental distribution of the surplus on or about
April 1, 2006. The total value of the planned distribution
is approximately $137 million, based on the closing stock
price on March 3, 2006, consisting of approximately
$25 million in cash and 2,541,000 shares of NRG common
stock. NRGs chapter 11 creditors holding allowed
claims in Class 5 are expected to receive approximately
$22.13 per $1,000.00 of allowed claim, consisting of $4.05 in
cash and 0.41 shares of NRG common stock. Creditors holding
Class 6 allowed claims are expected to receive
approximately $19.97 per $1,000.00 of allowed claim, consisting
of $1.89 in cash and 0.41 shares of NRG common stock.
|
|
Item 4 |
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
None.
70
PART II
|
|
Item 5 |
Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related
Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity
Securities |
Market Information and Holders
In connection with the consummation of our reorganization, on
December 5, 2003, all shares of our old common stock were
canceled and 100,000,000 shares of new common stock of NRG
were distributed pursuant to such plan in accordance with
Section 1145 of the bankruptcy code to the holders of
certain classes of claims. We received no proceeds from such
issuance. A certain number of shares of common stock were issued
and placed in the Disputed Claims Reserve for distribution to
holders of disputed claims as such claims are resolved or
settled. See Item 3 Legal
Proceedings Disputed Claims Reserve. In the event
our disputed claims reserve is inadequate, it is possible we
will have to issue additional shares of our common stock to
satisfy such pre-petition claims or contribute additional cash
proceeds. Our authorized capital stock consists of
500,000,000 shares of NRG common stock and
10,000,000 shares of preferred stock. A total of
4,000,000 shares of our common stock are available for
issuance under our long-term incentive plan. We have also filed
with the Secretary of State of Delaware a Certificate of
Designation for each of the following shares of preferred stock:
(i) our 4% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock:
(ii) our 3.625% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock
and (iii) our 5.75% Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock.
We also issued 35,406,292 shares of our common stock in
connection with the Texas Genco Acquisition as described below.
Also in connection with the Texas Genco Acquisition we issued
20,855,057 shares of common stock in a public offering;
2,000,000 shares of our 5.75% Mandatory Convertible
Preferred Stock in a public offering; and $3.6 billion of
unsecured high yield notes.
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and
has been assigned the symbol: NRG. We have submitted to the New
York Stock Exchange our annual certificate from our Chief
Executive Officer certifying that he is not aware of any
violation by us of New York Stock Exchange corporate governance
listing standards. The high and low sales prices, as well as the
closing price for our common stock on a per share basis for 2005
and 2004 are set forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth | |
|
Third | |
|
Second | |
|
First | |
|
Fourth | |
|
Third | |
|
Second | |
|
First | |
|
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
|
Quarter | |
Common Stock Price |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
High
|
|
$ |
49.44 |
|
|
$ |
44.45 |
|
|
$ |
37.61 |
|
|
$ |
39.10 |
|
|
$ |
36.18 |
|
|
$ |
28.43 |
|
|
$ |
24.80 |
|
|
$ |
22.50 |
|
Low
|
|
$ |
37.60 |
|
|
$ |
36.40 |
|
|
$ |
30.30 |
|
|
$ |
32.79 |
|
|
$ |
26.00 |
|
|
$ |
24.10 |
|
|
$ |
19.17 |
|
|
$ |
18.10 |
|
Closing
|
|
$ |
47.12 |
|
|
$ |
42.60 |
|
|
$ |
30.70 |
|
|
$ |
34.15 |
|
|
$ |
36.05 |
|
|
$ |
26.94 |
|
|
$ |
24.80 |
|
|
$ |
22.20 |
|
NRG had 80,701,888 shares outstanding as of
December 31, 2005, and as of March 3, 2006, there were
136,975,275 shares outstanding. As of February 10, 2006,
there were approximately 27,000 common stockholders of record.
Dividends
We have not declared or paid dividends on our common stock and
the amount available for dividends is currently limited by our
senior secured credit agreements and high yield note indentures.
Recent Sale of Unregistered Securities; Repurchase of Common
Stock
On February 2, 2006, NRG acquired Texas Genco LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, by purchasing all of the
outstanding equity interests in Texas Genco pursuant to the
Acquisition Agreement, dated September 30, 2005, by and
among NRG, Texas Genco, and each of the direct and indirect
owners of Texas Genco, or the Sellers. A portion of the
consideration paid to the Sellers consisted of
35,406,292 shares of our common stock to the Sellers in a
private placement in reliance on Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
71
On August 11, 2005, we entered into an Accelerated Share
Repurchase Agreement with Credit Suisse First Boston, or CSFB,
pursuant to which we repurchased $250 million of our common
stock on that date that equaled a total of
6,346,788 shares, which were held in treasury. We funded
the repurchase with cash on hand. On March 3, 2006, we paid
to CSFB a cash purchase price adjustment of approximately
$7 million based upon the weighted average value of
NRGs common stock over a period of approximately six
months, subject to a minimum price of 97% and a maximum price of
103% of the closing price per share on August 10, 2005, or
$39.39.
The following table summarizes the stock repurchased by NRG
Energy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number | |
|
Maximum Number | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Shares | |
|
of Shares That | |
|
|
Total Number | |
|
Average Price | |
|
Purchased as | |
|
May Yet be | |
|
|
of Shares | |
|
Paid per | |
|
Part of Publicly | |
|
Purchased Under | |
Period |
|
Purchased | |
|
Share | |
|
Announced Plans | |
|
the Plans | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
August 11, 2005
|
|
|
6,346,788* |
|
|
$ |
39.90 |
|
|
|
none |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
* |
6,346,788 shares were purchased as part of the Accelerated
Share Repurchase Agreement with CSFB as described above. |
Redemption and Repurchase of Second Priority Notes
During 2005 we redeemed and repurchased approximately
$645 million of our Second Priority Notes in a number of
stages as described in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
Date of |
|
|
|
|
Redemption |
|
|
|
|
or Repurchase |
|
Amount |
|
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
January 2005
|
|
$25 million face value repurchased |
|
Existing cash |
February 2005
|
|
$375 million redeemed |
|
Proceeds from the sale of the 4% Preferred Stock in December 2004 |
March 2005
|
|
$15.8 million face value repurchased |
|
Existing Cash |
September 2005
|
|
$229 million redeemed |
|
Proceeds from the sale of the 3.625% Preferred Stock in August
2005 |
As of December 31, 2005, the outstanding balance of our
Second Priority Notes was approximately $1.1 billion. All
outstanding Second Priority Notes were tendered, paid off and
defeased on February 2-3, 2006, using funds received from a
number of financial transactions as described in
Item 15 Note 34 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements.
72
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation
Plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) | |
|
(b) | |
|
(c) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available | |
|
|
Number of Securities | |
|
|
|
for Future Issuance | |
|
|
to be Issued Upon | |
|
Weighted-Average Exercise | |
|
Under Compensation | |
|
|
Exercise of | |
|
Price of Outstanding | |
|
Plans (Excluding | |
|
|
Outstanding Options, | |
|
Options, Warrants and | |
|
Securities Reflected | |
Plan Category |
|
Warrants and Rights | |
|
Rights | |
|
in Column (a)) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
2,593,179 |
|
|
$ |
25.04 |
|
|
|
1,355,193* |
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,593,179 |
|
|
$ |
25.04 |
|
|
|
1,355,193* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
The NRG Energy, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan became effective
upon our emergence from bankruptcy. The Long-Term Incentive
Plan, which was adopted in connection with the NRG plan of
reorganization, was approved by our stockholders on
August 4, 2004. The Long-Term Incentive Plan provides for
grants of stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted
stock, performance awards, deferred stock units and dividend
equivalent rights. Our directors, officers and employees, as
well as other individuals performing services for, or to whom an
offer of employment has been extended by us, are eligible to
receive grants under the Long-Term Incentive Plan. A total of
4,000,000 shares of our common stock are available for
issuance under the Long-Term Incentive Plan. The purpose of the
Long-Term Incentive Plan is to promote our long-term growth and
profitability by providing these individuals with incentives to
maximize stockholder value and otherwise contribute to our
success and to enable us to attract, retain and reward the best
available persons for positions of responsibility. The
Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors administers the
Long-Term Incentive Plan. There were 1,355,193 and
2,053,294 shares of common stock remaining available for
grants of stock options under our Long-Term Incentive Plan as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. |
73
|
|
Item 6 |
Selected Financial Data |
The following table presents our historical selected financial
data. The data included in the following table has been restated
to reflect the assets, liabilities and results of operations of
certain projects that have met the criteria for treatment as
discontinued operations. For additional information refer to
Item 15 Note 6 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements. The historical financial data does not
reflect any amounts for the purchase of Texas Genco as the
Acquisition closed after December 31, 2005.
This historical data should be read in conjunction with the
Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes thereto
in Item 15 and Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
in Item 7. Due to the adoption of Fresh Start reporting as
of December 5, 2003, the Successor Companys post
Fresh Start balance sheet and statement of operations have not
been prepared on a consistent basis with the Predecessor
Companys financial statements and are not comparable in
certain respects to the financial statements prior to the
application of Fresh Start reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Predecessor Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) | |
Revenues from majority-owned operations
|
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
|
$ |
2,348 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,798 |
|
|
$ |
1,926 |
|
|
$ |
2,085 |
|
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization, restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
435 |
|
|
|
2,497 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh start reporting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,220 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,470 |
|
|
|
1,955 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
(1,587 |
) |
|
|
4,231 |
|
|
|
1,704 |
|
Write downs and losses on equity method investments
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
(200 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
3,082 |
|
|
|
(2,693 |
) |
|
|
211 |
|
Income/(loss) from discontinued operations, net
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(316 |
) |
|
|
(771 |
) |
|
|
55 |
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
2,766 |
|
|
|
(3,464 |
) |
|
|
265 |
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations per weighted average
share basic
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
|
$ |
1.61 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations per weighted average
share diluted
|
|
$ |
0.66 |
|
|
$ |
1.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
7,431 |
|
|
|
7,864 |
|
|
|
9,315 |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
10,897 |
|
|
|
12,915 |
|
Long-term debt, including current maturities
|
|
$ |
2,682 |
|
|
$ |
3,484 |
|
|
$ |
3,846 |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
7,217 |
|
|
$ |
6,291 |
|
74
The following table provides the detail of our revenues from
majority-owned operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Predecessor Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Energy
|
|
$ |
2,014 |
|
|
$ |
1,364 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
|
$ |
910 |
|
|
$ |
1,172 |
|
|
$ |
1,376 |
|
Capacity
|
|
|
563 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
566 |
|
|
|
553 |
|
|
|
490 |
|
Hedging and risk management activities
|
|
|
(248 |
) |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative energy
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Other
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues from majority-owned operations
|
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
|
$ |
2,348 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,798 |
|
|
$ |
1,926 |
|
|
$ |
2,085 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy revenue consists of revenues received from third parties
for sales in the day-ahead and real-time markets, as well as
bilateral sales. In addition, this category includes day-ahead
and real-time operating revenues.
Capacity revenue consists of revenues received from a third
party at either the market or negotiated contract rates for
making installed generation capacity available in order to
satisfy system integrity and reliability requirements. In
addition, capacity revenues includes revenues received under
tolling arrangements which entitle third parties to dispatch our
facilities and assume title to the electrical generation
produced from that facility.
Hedging and Risk management activities includes fair value
changes of financial instruments (derivatives) that have
yet to be settled for the period, as well as, the revenues
derived from the settlement of financial transactions relating
to the sale of energy or fuel which do not require the physical
delivery of the underlying commodity.
Alternative energy revenue consists of revenues received from
the sale of steam, hot and chilled water generally produced at a
central district energy plant and sold to commercial,
governmental and residential buildings for space heating,
domestic hot water heating and air conditioning. Alternative
energy revenue includes the sale of high-pressure steam produced
and delivered to industrial customers that is used as part of an
industrial process. In addition, alternative revenue includes
revenues received from the processing of municipal solid waste
into refuse derived fuel that is sold to a third party to be
used as fuel in the generation of electricity.
Operations and management, or O&M, fees consist primarily of
revenues received from providing certain unconsolidated
affiliates with management and operational services generally
under long-term operating agreements.
Other revenues consist of miscellaneous other revenues derived
from the sale of natural gas, recovery of incurred costs under
reliability agreements and revenues received under leasing
arrangements. In addition, we also generate revenues from
maintenance, the sale of ancillary services excluding day-ahead.
Ancillary revenues are derived from the sale of energy related
products associated with the generation of electrical energy
such as spinning reserves, reactive power and other similar
products.
75
|
|
Item 7 |
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations |
Introduction and Overview
NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG Energy, the
Company, we, our, or
us is a wholesale power generation company,
primarily engaged in the ownership and operation of power
generation facilities, the transacting in and trading of fuel
and transportation services and the marketing and trading of
energy, capacity and related products in the United States and
internationally. We have a diverse portfolio of electric
generation facilities in terms of geography, fuel type and
dispatch levels. As of the close of the Acquisition, our
principal domestic generation assets consist of a diversified
mix of natural gas-, coal-, oil-fired and nuclear facilities,
representing approximately 45%, 34%, 16% and 5% of our total
domestic generation capacity, respectively. In addition, 10% of
our domestic generating facilities have dual or multiple fuel
capacity, which allows plants to dispatch with the lowest cost
fuel option.
In this discussion and analysis, we will discuss and explain the
general financial condition and the results of operations for
NRG during 2005 that will include the points below:
|
|
|
|
|
Factors which affect our business, |
|
|
|
Our earnings and costs in the periods presented, |
|
|
|
Changes in earnings and costs between periods, |
|
|
|
Sources of earnings, |
|
|
|
Impact of these factors on our overall financial condition, |
|
|
|
A discussion of known trends, including the expected impact of
the Texas Genco Acquisition, that will affect our future results
of operations and financial condition, |
|
|
|
Expected future expenditures for capital projects, and |
|
|
|
Expected sources of cash for future operations and capital
expenditures. |
As you read this discussion and analysis, refer to our
Consolidated Statements of Income, which present the results of
our operations for the years ended December 31, 2005 and
2004, the period of December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003 and for the period of January 1,
2003 through December 5, 2003. We analyze and explain the
differences between periods in the specific line items of our
Consolidated Statements of Income. However, it is important to
note that the historical financial information does not include
any results of operation or the financial condition of Texas
Genco.
We have organized our discussion and analysis as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
First, we discuss our strategy. |
|
|
|
We then describe the business environment in which we operate
including how regulation, weather, and other factors affect our
business. |
|
|
|
We highlight significant events that are important to
understanding our results of operations and financial condition. |
|
|
|
We then review our results of operations discussing: |
|
|
|
|
|
An overview of our total company results, followed by a more
detailed review of those results by operating segment. |
|
|
|
Known trends that will affect our results of operations in the
future. |
|
|
|
|
|
We review our financial condition addressing: |
|
|
|
|
|
Our sources and uses of cash, credit ratings, capital resources
and requirements, commitments, and off-balance sheet
arrangements. |
|
|
|
Known trends that will affect our financial condition in the
future. |
76
|
|
|
|
|
Next, we discuss our critical accounting policies. These are the
accounting policies that are most important to both the
portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations
and require managements most difficult, subjective or
complex judgment. |
Our Strategy
Our strategy is to optimize the value of our generation assets
while using that asset base as a platform for enhanced financial
performance which can be sustained and expanded upon in years to
come. We plan to maintain and enhance our position as a leading
wholesale power generation company in the United States in a
cost effective and risk-mitigating manner in order to serve the
bulk power requirements of our customer base and other entities
that offer load, or otherwise consume wholesale electricity
products and services in bulk. Our strategy includes the
following elements:
|
|
|
Increase value from our existing assets. We have a highly
diversified portfolio of power generation assets in terms of
region, fuel type and dispatch levels. We will continue to focus
on extracting value from our portfolio by improving plant
performance, reducing costs and harnessing our advantages of
scale in the procurement of fuels: a strategy that we have
branded FORNRG, or Focus on ROIC@NRG. |
|
|
Pursue intrinsic growth opportunities at existing sites in
our core regions. We are favorably positioned to pursue
growth opportunities through expansion of our existing
generating capacity. We intend to invest in our existing assets
through plant improvements, repowering and brownfield
development to meet anticipated regional requirements for new
capacity. We expect that these efforts will provide more
efficient energy, lower our delivered cost, expand our
electricity production capability and improve our ability to
dispatch economically across all sections of the merit order,
including baseload, intermediate and peaking generation. |
|
|
Maintain financial strength and flexibility. We remain
focused on increasing cash flow and maintaining liquidity and
balance sheet strength in order to ensure continued access to
capital for growth; enhancing risk-adjusted returns; and
providing flexibility in executing our business strategy. We
will continue our focus on maintaining operational and financial
controls designed to ensure that our financial position remains
strong. |
|
|
Reduce the volatility of our cash flows through asset-based
commodity hedging activities. We will continue to execute
asset-based risk management, hedging, marketing and trading
strategies within well-defined risk and liquidity guidelines in
order to manage the value of our physical and contractual
assets. Our marketing and hedging philosophy is centered on
generating stable returns from our portfolio of power generation
assets while preserving the ability to capitalize on strong spot
market conditions and to capture the extrinsic value of our
portfolio. We believe that we can successfully execute this
strategy by taking advantage of our expertise in marketing power
and ancillary services, our knowledge of markets, our flexible
financial structure and our diverse portfolio of power
generation assets. |
|
|
Participate in continued industry consolidation. We will
continue to pursue selective acquisitions, joint ventures and
divestitures to enhance our asset mix and competitive position
in our core regions to meet the fuel and dispatch requirements
in these regions. We intend to concentrate on acquisition and
joint venture opportunities that present attractive
risk-adjusted returns. We will also opportunistically pursue
other strategic transactions, including mergers, acquisitions or
divestitures during the consolidation of the power generation
industry in the United States. |
Business Environment
General Industry This past year, the energy
and power sector has been shaken by significant events and
change. These have shifted the industrys focus toward more
efficient energy and fuel management, infrastructure
developmental needs, and scope and scale merits. Those events
include:
|
|
|
|
|
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exacerbated an already tight
national natural gas production and delivery system during
record summer demand. This led to significant price spikes and
volatility across all fuel sources, which in turn spurred
regulatory concerns over excessive burdens on retail consumers
and |
77
|
|
|
|
|
renewed interest by incumbent utilities in securing long-term
power supplies that are not tied to the price of natural gas. |
|
|
|
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, or EPAct, the most comprehensive
energy legislation in more than a decade, was enacted in August
2005. EPAct reinforces FERC oversight and monitoring
responsibilities and encourages the development of regulatory
framework that provide the appropriate market signals for
increased infrastructure investment including generation. |
|
|
|
While financial and strategic buyers continue to participate in
energy sector asset sales and acquisitions, there has been
renewed interest within the power sector for scope and scale and
renewed merger and acquisitions activities by existing owners of
power generation. This year has also seen regulated utilities
seeking to participate in the competitive markets through
outright combinations with deregulated entities. |
|
|
|
The EPA released its CAIR and CAMR guidelines in March. While
there continues to be uncertainty as to the implementation
standards by certain states, these environmental requirements
coupled with potential improved scrubber technologies provide
additional clarity with respect to longer term compliance
strategies that will drive higher capital expenditure programs
towards the end of the decade for many energy providers. |
|
|
|
There has been contentious but continued progress towards
capacity markets evolution in order to meet increasing demand
and encourage new investment in transmission and generation in
load pockets around the country, including New England and
California. |
Competition Wholesale power generation is a
capital-intensive, commodity-driven business with numerous
industry participants. We compete on the basis of the location
of our plants and owning multiple plants in our regions, which
increases the stability and reliability of our energy supply.
Wholesale power generation is fundamentally a local business
which, at present, is highly fragmented (relative to other
commodity industries) and diverse in terms of industry
structure. As such, there is a wide variation in terms of the
capabilities, resources, nature and identity of the companies we
compete against from market to market.
Regulatory Matters As an operator of power
plants and a participant in wholesale energy markets, we are
subject to regulation by various federal and state government
agencies. These include FERC, NRC, PUCT and certain state public
utility commissions in which our generating assets are located.
In addition, we are also subject to the market rules, procedures
and protocols of the various ISO markets in which we
participate. The plant operations of, and wholesale electric
sales from our Texas assets are not currently subject to
regulation by FERC, as they are deemed to operate solely within
the ERCOT and not in interstate commerce. These operations are
subject to regulations by PUCT as well as to regulation by the
NRC with respect to its ownership interest in the STP.
Weather Weather conditions in the different
regions of the United States influence the financial results of
our business. Weather conditions can affect the supply of and
demand for electricity and fuels. Changes in energy supply and
demand may impact the price of these energy commodities in both
the spot market and the forward market, which may affect our
results in any given period. Typically, demand for electricity
and its price are higher in the summer and the winter, when
temperatures are more extreme. The demand for and price of
natural gas and oil are higher in the winter. However, all
regions of North America typically do not experience extreme
weather conditions at the same time, thus we are not typically
exposed to the effects of extreme weather in all parts of our
business at once.
Other Factors A number of other factors
significantly influence the level and volatility of prices for
energy commodities and related derivative products for our
business. These factors include:
|
|
|
|
|
seasonal daily and hourly changes in demand, |
|
|
|
extreme peak demands, |
|
|
|
available supply resources, |
|
|
|
transportation and transmission availability and reliability
within and between regions, |
78
|
|
|
|
|
location of our generating facilities relative to the location
of our load-serving opportunities, |
|
|
|
procedures used to maintain the integrity of the physical
electricity system during extreme conditions, and |
|
|
|
changes in the nature and extent of federal and state regulations |
These factors can affect energy commodity and derivative prices
in different ways and to different degrees. These effects may
vary throughout the country as a result of regional differences
in:
|
|
|
|
|
weather conditions, |
|
|
|
market liquidity, |
|
|
|
capability and reliability of the physical electricity and gas
systems, |
|
|
|
local transportation systems, and |
|
|
|
the nature and extent of electricity deregulation. |
Environmental Matters and Legal Proceedings
We discuss details of our environmental matters in
Item 15 Note 27 to our Consolidated
Financial Statements and Item 1 Business
Environmental Matters section. We discuss details of our legal
proceedings in Item 15 Note 25 to our
Consolidated Financial Statements. Some of this information is
about costs that may be material to our financial results.
Impact of inflation on our results Unless
discussed specifically in the relevant segment, for the years
ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the period of
December 6 through December 31, 2003 and the period
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003 the impact of
inflation and changing prices (due to changes in exchange rates)
on our revenue and income from continuing operations was
immaterial.
Results of Operations
Note: These historical results do not include the results
of Texas Genco, and therefore represent the results of NRG
Energy, Inc.s consolidated results only for the periods
presented.
79
The following table provides operating income by segment for the
year ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
Other North | |
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
All Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except MWh, CDD and HDD data) | |
Energy revenue
|
|
$ |
1,444 |
|
|
$ |
330 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
144 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
2,014 |
|
Capacity revenue
|
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
563 |
|
Hedging & risk management activity
|
|
|
(285 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(248 |
) |
Alternative revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Other revenue
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
|
1,554 |
|
|
|
552 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
2,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy
|
|
|
871 |
|
|
|
368 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
1,529 |
|
Derivative cost of energy
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other operating
expenses(1)
|
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
738 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
Operating income/ (loss)
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
MWh
sold(2)
(in thousands)
|
|
|
16,128 |
|
|
|
11,710 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
5,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market indicators:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average natural gas price Henry Hub ($/MMbtu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
8.89 |
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh)
|
|
$ |
91.98 |
|
|
$ |
69.96 |
|
|
$ |
71.06 |
|
|
$ |
63.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooling Degree Days, or
CDDs(3)
|
|
|
1,604 |
|
|
|
2,825 |
|
|
|
776 |
|
|
|
970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
1,073 |
|
|
|
2,449 |
|
|
|
704 |
|
|
|
708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or
HDDs(3)
|
|
|
10,449 |
|
|
|
1,638 |
|
|
|
2,563 |
|
|
|
5,095 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
10,479 |
|
|
|
1,888 |
|
|
|
2,790 |
|
|
|
5,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Other operating expenses include Cost of majority-owned
operations and General, administrative and
development expenses, excluding cost of energy. |
|
(2) |
Includes MWhs sold for wholly owned subsidiaries only. |
|
(3) |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate
Prediction Center A CDD represents the number of
degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day is above
65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. An HDD represents the
number of degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day
is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. The CDDs/ HDDs
for a period of time are calculated by adding the CDDs/ HDDs for
each day during the period. |
80
The following table provides operating income by segment for the
year ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
Other North | |
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
All Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except MWh, CDD and HDD data) | |
Energy revenue
|
|
$ |
853 |
|
|
$ |
219 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
159 |
|
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
$ |
1,365 |
|
Capacity revenue
|
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
Hedging & risk management activity
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Alternative revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Other revenue
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
|
1,251 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
401 |
|
|
|
2,348 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy
|
|
|
521 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
1,006 |
|
Derivative cost of energy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating
expenses(1)
|
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
693 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
Operating income/(loss)
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
393 |
|
MWh
sold(2)
(in thousands)
|
|
|
14,259 |
|
|
|
10,569 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5,189 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market indicators:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average natural gas price Henry Hub ($/MMbtu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5.89 |
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh)
|
|
$ |
63.53 |
|
|
$ |
45.76 |
|
|
$ |
53.16 |
|
|
$ |
43.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooling Degree Days, or
CDDs(3)
|
|
|
1,031 |
|
|
|
2,547 |
|
|
|
888 |
|
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
1,073 |
|
|
|
2,449 |
|
|
|
704 |
|
|
|
708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or
HDDs(3)
|
|
|
10,256 |
|
|
|
1,557 |
|
|
|
2,347 |
|
|
|
4,987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
10,479 |
|
|
|
1,888 |
|
|
|
2,790 |
|
|
|
5,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Other operating expenses include Cost of majority-owned
operations and General, administrative and
development expenses, excluding cost of energy. |
|
(2) |
Includes MWhs sold for wholly owned subsidiaries only. |
|
(3) |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate
Prediction Center A CDD represents the number of
degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day is above
65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. An HDD represents the
number of degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day
is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. The CDDs/ HDDs
for a period of time are calculated by adding the CDDs/ HDDs for
each day during the period. |
81
The following table provides operating income by segment for the
period December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
For the Period from December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
Other North | |
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
All Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except MWh, CDD and HDD data) | |
Energy revenue
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
64 |
|
Capacity revenue
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
Hedging & risk management activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Alternative revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other revenue
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
Derivative cost of energy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating
expenses(1)
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Operating income/(loss)
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
Market indicators:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average natural gas price Henry Hub ($/MMbtu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6.28 |
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh)
|
|
$ |
60.75 |
|
|
$ |
39.98 |
|
|
$ |
49.08 |
|
|
$ |
33.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooling Degree Days, or
CDDs(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
1,073 |
|
|
|
2,449 |
|
|
|
704 |
|
|
|
708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or
HDDs(3)
|
|
|
1,494 |
|
|
|
377 |
|
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
803 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
10,479 |
|
|
|
1,888 |
|
|
|
2,790 |
|
|
|
5,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Other operating expenses include Cost of majority-owned
operations and General, administrative and
development expenses, excluding cost of energy. |
|
(2) |
Includes MWhs sold for wholly owned subsidiaries only. |
|
(3) |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate
Prediction Center A CDD represents the number of
degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day is above
65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. An HDD represents the
number of degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day
is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. The CDDs/ HDDs
for a period of time are calculated by adding the CDDs/ HDDs for
each day during the period. |
82
Upon our emergence from bankruptcy, we adopted the Fresh Start
Reporting provisions of
SOP 90-7.
Accordingly, the Reorganized NRG statement of operations and
statement of cash flows have not been prepared on a consistent
basis with the Predecessor Companys financial statements
and are not comparable in certain respects to the financial
statements prior to the application of Fresh Start, therefore,
the Predecessor Companys and the Reorganized NRGs
amounts are discussed separately for comparison and analysis
purposes, herein.
The following table provides operating income by segment for the
period January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
For the Period from January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
Other North | |
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
All Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions, except MWh, CDD and HDD data) | |
Energy revenue
|
|
$ |
554 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
910 |
|
Capacity revenue
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
566 |
|
Hedging & risk management activity
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
Alternative revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Other revenue
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
|
861 |
|
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
1,798 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
845 |
|
Derivative cost of energy
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Other operating
expenses(1)
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
211 |
|
Operating income/ (loss)
|
|
|
(1,331 |
) |
|
|
(384 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(465 |
) |
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
5,734 |
|
|
|
3,385 |
|
Market indicators:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average natural gas price Henry Hub ($/MMbtu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5.43 |
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh)
|
|
$ |
61.78 |
|
|
$ |
41.53 |
|
|
$ |
48.64 |
|
|
$ |
37.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooling Degree Days, or
CDDs(3)
|
|
|
1,164 |
|
|
|
2,583 |
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
1,073 |
|
|
|
2,449 |
|
|
|
704 |
|
|
|
708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or
HDDs(3)
|
|
|
11,404 |
|
|
|
1,836 |
|
|
|
2,455 |
|
|
|
5,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HDDs 30 year rolling average
|
|
|
10,479 |
|
|
|
1,888 |
|
|
|
2,790 |
|
|
|
5,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Other operating expenses include Cost of majority-owned
operations and General, administrative and
development expenses, excluding cost of energy. |
|
(2) |
Includes MWhs sold for wholly owned subsidiaries only. |
|
(3) |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate
Prediction Center A CDD represents the number of
degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day is above
65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. An HDD represents the
number of degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day
is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. The CDDs/ HDDs
for a period of time are calculated by adding the CDDs/ HDDs for
each day during the period. |
83
|
|
|
For year ended December 31, 2005 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2004 |
|
|
|
Significant Events Reflected in our Results of Operations
During 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Extreme weather conditions, including Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, contributed to the increase in the sale price of power.
This increase in power prices drove the net
mark-to-market losses
of $119 million primarily associated with forward financial
electric sales in support of our Northeast assets. |
|
|
|
As compared to the year ended December 31, 2004, on-peak
electricity prices increased between 43% to 53% in the various
markets we operate, whereas our total domestic coal costs, which
are largely contracted, increased only 17% increasing our dark
spreads. Gas and oil prices increased 50% and 49%, respectively,
resulting in higher spark spreads, but compressed oil margins as
compared to the same period last year(1) |
|
|
|
Total generation increased for the year ended December 31,
2005 compared to 2004 by 5%. |
|
|
|
We began selling excess emission allowances, and have recognized
a net gain of $31 million during 2005. |
|
|
|
Forced outages at our Huntley, Dunkirk, Indian River and Big
Cajun II plants during 2005 negatively impacted our
generation by 2.4 million MWh. |
|
|
|
We repurchased $645 million in aggregate principal amount
of our Second Priority Notes, resulting in $45 million of
refinancing charges. |
|
|
|
We sold a number of non-core assets including, Enfield, our
Northbrook assets and our remaining Kendall interest for a total
of $106 million in proceeds and a net gain of approximately
$32 million. |
|
|
|
We announced the signing of a sale agreement for Rocky Road
resulting in an impairment charge of $20 million. |
|
|
|
We wrote-down our interest in the Saguaro Power Company by
$27 million. |
|
|
|
Revenues from Majority-Owned Operations |
Revenues from majority-owned operations were $2,708 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to
$2,348 million for the year ended December 31, 2004,
an increase of $360 million. Energy revenues for the year
ended December 31, 2005 increased $649 million from
$1,365 million to $2,014 million. Of the
$2,014 million, 87% were merchant as compared to 70% for
the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase in energy
revenues versus 2004 was driven by both increased prices and the
increased merchant generation from our Northeast assets. Energy
revenues from our domestic coal assets increased by
$314 million, all due to increased power prices, as
generation from our domestic coal assets decreased 5% for the
year ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the same period
in 2004. This decrease in generation was due to both planned and
unplanned outages at Huntley, Indian River, and Big
Cajun II during the second and fourth quarters, and the
time we typically perform outage work. Energy revenue from our
gas assets in New York City increased by $176 million,
including $23 million in NYISO final settlement payments.
Of the remaining $153 million, both price and generation
nearly equally contributed to the increase. Energy revenues from
our oil-fired assets rose by $211 million, 86% due to
higher volumes following an increase in summer demand as the
generation from these assets increased by 122% for the year
ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the same period in
2004. Additionally, a one-time payment of $39 million from
the Connecticut Light and Power settlement contributed to energy
revenue during the second quarter of 2004.
Capacity revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005 were
$563 million compared to $612 million for the year
ended December 31, 2004, a reduction of $49 million.
Capacity revenues were unfavorable versus last year due to the
loss of $56 million capacity revenues from the Kendall
facility, which was sold in the fourth
1 Per the Henry Hub
gas price index published by Platts Gas Daily.
84
quarter of 2004, and the expiration of the Rockford tolling
agreement in May 2005 which reduced
year-on-year results by
$23 million. Capacity revenues from our western New York
plants decreased by $10 million due to the addition of new
generation and increased imports in New York, which depressed
capacity prices for our assets in the western New York market
during the first half of 2005. This loss was offset by a
$44 million increase in capacity revenues from our
Connecticut assets. This increase is related to the additional
$24 million capacity revenues recorded in 2005 related to
our Connecticut RMR settlement agreement. Alternative revenues
for the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 were
$191 million and $175 million, respectively. Increased
generation due to the hotter weather this summer and an increase
in contract rates from our Thermal and Resource Recovery
operations positively impacted the alternative revenues results.
Other revenues include emission allowance sales, natural gas
sales, Fresh Start-related contract amortization, and expense
recovery revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2005,
other revenues totaled a $168 million compared to
$98 million of other revenues for the same period in 2004.
The increase is due to higher emission allowance revenues,
higher physical gas sales and lower contract amortization,
offset by lower expense recovery revenues. Please see our
discussion below as to our emission allowance position and
sales. The increase in other revenues was also attributed to
$33 million in higher gas sales. The increase in gas sales
is primarily related to a new gas sale agreement entered into in
the third quarter of 2005 by the South Central region, where
revenues from gas sales increased by $23 million. We
entered into this agreement in conjunction with power purchase
agreements to minimize our market purchases during peak months.
Lower contract amortization of $30 million is related to
contracts rolling off over the course of time. Finally, during
the year ended December 31, 2005, expense recovery revenues
were $29 million lower versus the comparable period in
2004. Expense recovery revenues are associated with our
Connecticut RMR agreements and we reached our maximum payment
under that agreement during the first quarter of 2005.
Sale of Excess
SO2
Emission Allowances We actively manage our surplus
emission allowance position. During the later half of 2005, we
began trading a portion of our excess
SO2
emission allowances to third parties. Revenues from the sale of
emission allowances to third parties net of purchases totaled
$31 million in 2005, excluding the EPA auction results. The
following table provides the sales activity and our balance of
emission allowances (excluding Texas Genco) for vintage years,
through 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average | |
|
|
|
|
Tons | |
|
Sales Price | |
|
Revenue | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Balance of NRG SO
2
Emissions Credits Allowances, as of December 31, 2004
|
|
|
897,653 |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
Sales during 2005
|
|
|
35,052 |
|
|
$ |
889 |
|
|
$ |
31 million |
|
|
Consumed
|
|
|
(115,810 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance of NRG SO
2
Emissions Credits Allowances, as of December 31,
2005
|
|
|
746,791 |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
Completed Sales between January 1 and February 28, 2006
|
|
|
46,077 |
|
|
$ |
1,180 |
|
|
$ |
54 million |
|
Balance of NRG SO
2
Emissions Credits Allowances, as of February 28,
2006
|
|
|
700,714 |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
In addition to our
SO2
emission allowance balances presented above, after the closing
of the acquisition of Texas Genco, the combined NRG balance of
excess
SO2
emissions allowances for vintage years through 2009 is 1,329,066
tons on February 28, 2006.
We expect to continue the active management of our
SO2
emission allowances in excess of our forecast generation needs.
85
|
|
|
Hedging and Risk Management Activity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
Other North |
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western |
|
America |
|
Australia | |
|
All Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net gains/ (losses) on settled positions, or financial revenues
|
|
$ |
(132 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
(103 |
) |
Mark-to-market results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of previously recognized unrealized (gains)/losses on
settled positions
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
Net unrealized gains/ (losses) on open positions related to
economic hedges
|
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(112 |
) |
Net unrealized gains/ (losses) on open positions related to
trading activity
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal mark-to-market results
|
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(143 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivative gain/ (loss)
|
|
$ |
(283 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
(246 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedging and Risk Management Activity The
total derivative loss for the year was approximately
$246 million, comprised of $103 million in financial
revenue losses and $143 million of
mark-to-market losses.
The $103 million loss of financial revenues represent the
settled value for the year of all financial instruments
including but not limited to financial swaps on power. Of the
$143 million of
mark-to-market losses,
$112 million represents the change in fair value of forward
sales of electricity and fuel $114 million
losses associated with electricity sales and $2 million
gain associated with cost of fuel, the reversal of
$58 million of
mark-to-market gains
which ultimately settled as financial revenues and
$27 million
mark-to-market gain
related to trading activity. These activities primarily support
our Northeast assets. The $112 million domestic loss
related to forward sales during 2005 compares to a
$59 million gain for the same period during 2004.
Since our economic hedging activities are intended to mitigate
the risk of commodity price movements on revenues and cost of
energy sold, the changes in such results should not be viewed in
isolation, but rather taken together with the effects of pricing
and cost changes on energy revenues and costs of energy. In the
fourth quarter of 2004 and over the course of 2005, we hedged
much of our calendar year 2005 and 2006 Northeast generation.
Since that time and during the third quarter 2005 in particular,
the settled and forward prices of electricity rose, driven by
the extreme weather conditions this summer. While this increase
in electricity prices benefited our generation portfolio versus
last year with higher energy revenues, it is also the reason for
the mark-to-market
recognition of the forward sales and the settlement of positions
as losses.
In addition to the hedging techniques used until now, we expect
to utilize hedging strategies that are option-based with a goal
of establishing a floor on earnings, leaving upside market
participation, minimizing
mark-to-market swings
and optimizing collateral support of our hedging program. For
2007, we have already locked in a floor on 30% of our baseload
coal generation at current forward prices while preserving our
ability to benefit from further upward movement in northeastern
electricity prices.
|
|
|
Cost of Majority-Owned Operations |
Cost of majority-owned operations for the year ended
December 31, 2005 was $2,067 million. Cost of
majority-owned operations for the year ended December 31,
2004 was $1,489 million or 63% of revenues from
majority-owned operations. The increase is related to the cost
of energy, which increased by $521 million, to
$1,529 million or 56% of revenues for the year ended
December 31, 2005 from $1,008 million or 43% of
revenues for the same period in 2004. The increase in the cost
of energy as a percentage of revenues is driven by the higher
mark to market loss in revenues, by both higher price and
generation in the Northeast region and higher purchased energy
and gas sales in the South Central region. Total gas costs
increased by $163 million, $124 million in the New
York City assets alone. Of the increase at our New York City
assets, $15 million was due to increased gas purchases for
resale, with approximately $67 million due to increased
generation. The
86
South Central regions gas costs increased by
$25 million due to physical gas purchases related to a new
gas sale agreement entered into in the third quarter of 2005 to
support certain tolling arrangements. Total oil costs for the
company increased by $165 million, 65% due to increased
generation from our oil-fired assets, and the remainder due to
an increase in price. Total coal costs increased by
$71 million. The increase at our domestic coal-fired assets
is solely due to price increases, as overall generation from our
coal-fired assets decreased for the year ended December 31,
2005 by 5% as compared to the same period in 2004 due to the
planned and forced outages at our Huntley, Indian River and Big
Cajun II facilities. The increase in coal prices is related
to new low-sulfur coal and rail contracts which became effective
in April 2005. Additionally, our Indian River plant uses a
higher portion of eastern coal that experienced a significant
cost increase in 2005. We have increased our percentage blend of
low-sulfur coal over the year as compared to the same period
last year. This had the effect of mitigating the increase in
coal and coal transportation costs as low sulfur coal prices
have not increased as much as regular coal prices. Total
purchased energy increased by $112 million due to increases
at our South Central region. Higher long-term contract load
demand due to the extreme weather, a
100-MW
around-the-clock sale
to Entergy, a tolling agreement, and the forced outages during
the second quarter, required South Central to purchase energy to
meet its contract load obligations.
Other Operating Expenses during 2005 totaled $737 million
versus $693 million in the comparable period of 2004, an
increase of $44 million. This increase is driven by a
$51 million, or 11%, increase in operating and maintenance
costs. Major maintenance projects and more extensive outages in
2005, as compared to 2004, contributed $33 million to the
increase. The low-sulfur coal conversions and turbine overhauls
of the western New York plants and Indian River plant was a main
focus for many of the major maintenance and outages in 2005.
South Central also went through a significant outage to install
a low-NOX burner on one of its units and an additional outage
was completed this Fall to address reliability issues
experienced at the Big Cajun II unit earlier in the year.
Normal maintenance increased by $9 million or 9% due to the
increased run time at our plants this summer. Additionally, in
2004, a settlement with a third party vendor regarding auxiliary
power charges reduced 2004 operating and maintenance expenses by
$7 million.
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
Our depreciation and amortization expense for the year ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004 was approximately
$194 million and $208 million, respectively. The
decrease in depreciation and amortization from 2005 to 2004 is
due to the 2004 sale of our Kendall plant, which contributed
approximately $14 million in depreciation and amortization
expense during 2004.
|
|
|
General, Administrative and Development |
Our G&A costs for the year ended December 31, 2005 were
$197 million compared to $210 million for the same
period in 2004, a decrease of $13 million. Corporate costs
represent $94 million or 3% of revenues and
$113 million or 5% of revenues for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. G&A costs
have been favorably impacted by $11 million in reduced bad
debt expense associated with notes receivable from third
parties. Additionally, external consulting expenses decreased in
2005 as compared to 2004 by approximately $11 million
primarily related to reduced tax and legal consulting. These
favorable impacts were offset by a $5 million increase in
information technology related expenses primarily associated
with increased compliance costs related to Sarbanes Oxley and
the relocation from Minneapolis.
|
|
|
Corporate Relocation Charges |
During the year ended December 31, 2005, charges related to
our corporate relocation activities were approximately
$6 million as compared to $16 million in 2004.
Included in this years charges is approximately
$3 million related to the lease abandonment charges
associated with our former Minneapolis office with the remainder
related to the relocation, recruitment and transition costs. In
2004, we recorded $16 million primarily related to employee
severance and termination benefits and employee-related
transition costs. We completed the physical move of our
relocation in 2004 when the majority of costs were incurred. We
do not expect any material relocation charges in 2006.
87
|
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Affiliates |
During the year ended December 31, 2005, equity earnings
from our investments in unconsolidated affiliates were
$104 million compared to $160 million for the year
ended December 31, 2004, a decrease of $56 million.
Our earnings in WCP accounted for $22 million and
$69 million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and
2004, respectively. The decrease in WCPs equity earnings
is due to the expiration of the CDWR contract in December 2004.
Enfields equity earnings were $13 million lower for
the year ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the same
period in 2004. We sold our investment in Enfield on
April 1, 2005. For the year ended December 31, 2005
results for Enfield include approximately $12 million of
unrealized gains associated with
mark-to-market
increases in the fair value of energy-related derivative
instruments, as compared to $23 million of unrealized gain
for the same period of 2004.
Other equity investments included in the 2005 results include
MIBRAG and Gladstone which comprised $26 million and
$24 million for the year ended December 31, 2005,
respectively. For the comparable period in 2004, MIBRAG and
Gladstone earned $21 million and $18 million,
respectively. MIBRAGs equity earnings for 2004 were
negatively impacted by an outage at our Schkopau plant;
additionally, MIBRAG recorded a lower asset retirement
obligation in 2005 as compared to 2004. Gladstones
earnings in 2005 were greater than 2004 due to lower major
maintenance expense and an approximate $1 million recovery
in business interruption insurance.
|
|
|
Write Downs and Gains/(Losses) on Sales of Equity Method
Investments |
During the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded a
$31 million loss due to the sale and impairment of certain
equity investments as we continued to divest of non-core assets.
On April 1, 2005, we sold our 25% interest in Enfield,
resulting in net pre-tax proceeds of $65 million and a
pre-tax gain of $12 million, including the post-closing
working capital adjustments. In 2005, we also sold our interest
in Kendall for $5 million in net pre-tax proceeds and a
pre-tax gain of approximately $4 million. These gains on
sales were offset by approximately $47 million in
impairment charges recorded this year.
In December 2005, we executed an agreement with Dynegy to sell
our 50% interest in Rocky Road LLC in conjunction with our
purchase of Dynegys 50% interest in WCP. Based on this
arms length transaction rendering the fair value of our
investment in Rocky Road at $45 million, we subsequently
impaired our investment to this fair value by an approximate
write down of $20 million. We expect to close the sale of
our interest of Rocky Road during the first half of 2006. We
also recorded an impairment of $27 million on our
investment in Saguaro. With the expiration of its gas supply
contract, Saguaro began recording operating losses during the
second half of 2005, triggering a permanent write down to
NRGs investment value in Saguaro.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, we sold our Loy
Yang investment which resulted in a $1 million loss, our
interest in Commonwealth Atlantic Limited Partnership for a
$5 million loss, and several NEO investments for a
$4 million loss. These losses were offset by a
$1 million gain associated with the sale of Calpine
Cogeneration. Also during 2004, we recorded a $7 million
impairment charge on our investment in James River LLC based on
an estimated sale value from a prospective buyer.
Other income had a net increase of $35 million during the
year ended December 31, 2005 as compared to the same period
in 2004. Other income in 2005 was favorably impacted by a
$14 million gain from the settlement related to our
TermoRio project in Brazil and a gain of approximately
$4 million related to the resolution of a contingency from
the sale of a former project, the Crockett Cogeneration
Facility, which was sold in 2002. Other income was also
favorably impacted by $14 million of higher interest income
related to more efficient management of our cash balances. These
favorable results were offset by a $3 million reserve
relating to the ongoing TermoRio litigation.
88
Refinancing expenses for the year ended December 31, 2005
and 2004 were $56 million and $72 million,
respectively. During 2005, as part of our continuing effort to
manage our capital structure, we redeemed and purchased a total
of $645 million of our Second Priority Notes. As a result
of the redemption and purchases, we incurred $55 million in
premiums and write-offs of deferred financing costs. Our
Australia region also refinanced its project debt for better
terms, resulting in the write-off of approximately
$10 million of debt premium, i.e. refinancing income. We
also incurred an additional $11 million in refinancing fees
during 2005 related to the amortization of a bridge loan
commitment fee that we paid related to the Acquisition of Texas
Genco.
As part of our new financing in 2006 in conjunction with the
acquisition of Texas Genco, we paid a bridge loan commitment fee
of approximately $45 million to ensure that we would have
the proper financing in place for the said acquisition. This
amount is being amortized over time, and during 2005 we
amortized approximately $11 million to refinancing expense.
The remaining balance of this amount will be expensed during the
first quarter of 2006 as we finalized the new financings related
to the acquisition of Texas Genco.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, we refinanced
certain amounts of our term loans with additional corporate
level high yield notes for better terms, which resulted in
$15 million of prepayment penalties and a $15 million
write-off of deferred financing costs. Additionally, we
refinanced our senior credit facility in December 2004 and
recorded $14 million of prepayment penalties and a
$27 million of write-off of deferred financing costs.
Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2005 was
$197 million as compared to $266 million for the same
period in 2004, a reduction of $69 million. Interest
expense was favorably impacted by the sale of Kendall which
incurred $25 million of interest expense year ended
December 31, 2004. Additionally, the refinancing of our
Senior Credit Facility on December 23, 2004 lowered our
interest rate by 212.5 basis points and the
$645 million redemption and purchases of our Second
Priority Notes during 2005 reduced interest expense on our
corporate debt by approximately $50 million.
Income tax expense was approximately $43 million and
approximately $65 million for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The overall
effective tax rate was 35.8% and 28.7% for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The effective
income tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2005 and
2004 differs from the U.S. statutory rate of 35% due to the
earnings in foreign jurisdictions taxed at rates lower than the
U.S. statutory rate, rendering an effective tax rate of
17.3% and 9.7%, respectively, on foreign income. Our 2005
domestic income tax effective rate increased due to our gain on
the sale of Enfield and the taxable dividend received pursuant
to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Also see our tax rate
reconciliation disclosure in Note 22, Income Taxes,
to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
The effective tax rate may vary from period to period depending
on, among other factors, the geographic and business mix of
earnings and losses and the adjustment of valuation allowances
in accordance with SFAS 109. These factors and others,
including our history of pre-tax earnings and losses, are taken
into account in assessing the ability to realize deferred tax
assets.
|
|
|
Income from Discontinued Operations, net of Income
Taxes |
During the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, we
recorded a gain from discontinued operations of $7 million
and $25 million, respectively, as we continued to divest
certain non-core assets. Discontinued operations for the year
ended December 31, 2005 consist of Audrain, the Northbrook
New York and Northbrook Energy assets and various expenses
related to the final settlements of McClain. During the year
ended December 31, 2004, discontinued operations consisted
of the results of Audrain, the two Northbrook
89
entities, McClain, Penobscot Energy Recovery Company, or PERC,
Compania Boliviana De Energia Electrica S.A. Bolivian Power
Company Limited, or Cobee, Hsin Yu, LSP Energy (Batesville) and
four NEO Corporation projects (NEO Nashville LLC, NEO Hackensack
LLC, NEO Prima Deshecha and NEO Tajiguas LLC). With the
exception of Audrain, Northbrook New York and Northbrook Energy,
all discontinued operations were sold prior to December 31,
2004.
As of December 31, 2005, the sale of Audrain is still
pending and remains subject to regulatory approvals.
Amerens application to assume certain obligations of
Audrain is pending before the Missouri Public Service Commission
.. The case filed with the FERC seeking authorization for the
transaction pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power
Act has been protested by the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric
Utility Commission. The pre-merger waiting period under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act expired
January 19, 2006. Despite the above, we still expect
to close this sale during the first half of 2006.
For the year ended December 31, 2005, operating income for
the Northeast region was $218 million, as compared to
$318 million for the same period in 2004, a decrease of
$100 million. This decrease is due to $119 million net
MTM losses reported by the Northeast associated with forward
sales of electricity as compared to a $59 million net MTM
gain booked in 2004. Excluding net MTM losses or gains, the
Northeast operating income increased by $52 million. This
increase was largely due to increased power prices, wider dark
spread margins, and increased generation from the Northeast gas
and oil assets. With higher than average temperatures this
summer, on-peak electricity prices increased 43% to 52% as
compared to 2004, while gas and oil prices increased 50% and
49%(1) Spark spreads on our gas and coal margins widened, while
oil margins were compressed compared to the same period last
year. The Northeasts New York City assets benefited from
the increased spark spreads as they increased their generation
output by 52% versus last year, from 1.1 million MWh to
1.7 million MWh due to increased summer demand. Generation
from our Northeast oil-fired assets increased by 122%, but oil
margins decreased by 25% versus 2004, as our cost per MWh
increased by 29% in comparison to the same period in 2004 due to
an offsetting increase in oil prices.
Revenues from our Northeast region totaled $1,554 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to
$1,251 million for the same period in 2004, an increase of
$303 million. Revenues for the year ended December 31,
2005 included $1,444 million in energy revenues compared to
$853 million for the same period in 2004. Of this
$591 million increase, $183 million can be attributed
to our New York City assets. Due to outages of local competitors
and extreme heat this summer, sold generation from our New York
City assets increased by 52% for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to 2004. Excluding the
$23 million of final NYISO settlement payments, increased
generation accounted for 49% of the increase in NYC energy
revenues. Our oil-fired assets earned $211 million more in
energy revenues, and increased generation 122% during 2005 as
compared to 2004; 86% of the increased energy revenues were due
to increased generation. Our coal assets recorded higher energy
revenues of $99 million due solely to higher power prices
as generation from our coal assets had a minimal decrease for
the year ended December 31, 2005.
Capacity revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005 were
$291 million compared to $265 million for the same
period in 2004. Capacity revenues were favorable versus the last
year due to $24 million additional capacity revenues
recorded during the second quarter of 2005 in conjunction with
our Connecticut RMR settlement agreement approved by FERC on
January 22, 2005. These settlement revenues were offset,
however, by lower capacity revenues from our western New York
plants. Capacity prices in western New York were negatively
impacted by the addition of new capacity supply and increased
imports into the state.
1Per the Henry Hub gas price index published by Platts Gas
Daily.
90
Other revenues include emission credit sales, natural gas sales,
Fresh Start-related contract amortization, and expense recovery
revenues and totaled $104 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to $75 million the same
period in 2004, an increase of $29 million. This increase
is related to the additional $43 million in emission
allowance sales to both external parties and inter-company
sales. In addition, other revenues increased from
$6 million in higher gas sales, and $6 million in
lower contract amortization as the contracts have rolled off
over time. Other revenues were adversely impacted by
$29 million in lower expense recovery revenues related to
the Connecticut RMR agreement. We reached our maximum payment
under that agreement during the first quarter of 2005.
Hedging and Risk Management Activity The
total derivative loss for the year was $283 million,
comprised of $132 million in financial revenue losses and
$151 million of
mark-to-market losses.
The $132 million loss of financial revenues represent the
settled value for the year of all financial instruments
including financial swaps and options on power. Of the
$151 million of
mark-to-market losses,
$119 million represents fair value of forward sales of
electricity and fuel $121 million losses
associated with electricity sales and $2 million gain
associated with cost of fuel, the reversal of $59 million
of mark-to-market gains
which ultimately settled as financial revenues and
$27 million
mark-to-market gain
related to trading activity. These activities primarily support
our Northeast assets.
Since hedging activities are intended to mitigate the risk of
commodity price movements on revenues and cost of energy sold,
the changes in such results should not be viewed in isolation,
but rather taken together with the effects of pricing and cost
changes on energy revenues and costs of energy. In the fourth
quarter of 2004 and over the course of 2005, we hedged much of
our calendar year 2005 and 2006 Northeast generation. Since that
time and during the third quarter 2005 in particular, the
settled and forward prices of electricity rose, driven by the
extreme weather conditions this summer. While this increase in
electricity prices benefited our generation portfolio versus
last year with higher energy revenues, it is also the reason for
the mark-to-market
recognition of the forward sales and the settlement of positions
as losses.
Cost of energy increased by $350 million for our Northeast
region for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to the
same period in 2004. Oil fuel costs in our Northeast region
increased by $162 million, where 65% of the increase was
due to increased generation. The Northeasts gas fuel costs
increased by $129 million. Higher gas sales from our New
York City assets drove $15 million of the increase, with
$109 million of the increase related to higher prices and
demand for our NYC assets. Coal costs increased by
$61 million, due to increased prices, although our
coal-fired generation in the Northeast had a minimal decrease
during 2005 as compared to 2004, specifically due to scheduled
and unplanned outages at our western New York and Indian River
facilities during the second and fourth quarters. Of the
$61 million increase in coal cost, 71% was due to increases
at our Indian River plant. Our Indian River plant uses a higher
portion of eastern coal, whose price experienced a significant
cost increase during 2005.
Other operating costs for our Northeast region increased by
$55 million for the year ended December 31, 2005
compared to the same period in 2004. This increase was driven by
operating and maintenance costs, led by higher major maintenance
costs. The low-sulfur conversion projects continued at our
Western New York plants and began at our Indian River plant this
year and major outages related to turbine overhauls took place
at our Western New York and Indian River plants. The increased
number and extensiveness of the outages contributed to the
$14 million increase in major maintenance expense this
year. Additionally, in 2004, a settlement with a third party
vendor regarding auxiliary power charges reduced 2004 operating
and maintenance expenses by $7 million.
Other operating expenses for the Northeast region include the
administrative regional office costs, other non-income tax
expense, insurance and corporate allocations. These costs
increased by $30 million in 2005 compared to 2004,
$14 million of which was due in non-income tax expense as
we recognized property tax credits in 2004. Additionally,
regional office and corporate allocations also increased per our
new allocation
91
methodology as discussed in Item 15
Note 21, Segment Reporting, to the Consolidated
Financial Statements.
|
|
|
South Central Region Results |
For the year ended December 31, 2005, the South Central
region realized operating income of $20 million, as
compared to $58 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004. During 2005, our Big Cajun II
facility experienced several forced outages during the summer
months, at which time contract demand and replacement power
costs were at their highest. Generation for 2005 decreased by 6%
from 10.6 million MWh to 9.9 million MWh versus the
same period in 2004, with 0.2 million MWh lost due to
forced outages. These outages contributed to the purchase of
$114 million in additional purchased energy required to
meet contract load-following obligation in the merchant market
at costs higher than our coal-based generating assets. In
addition, during 2005, South Central had three planned outages
versus one major planned outage during 2004, which increased
major maintenance by $16 million as compared to the year
ended December 31, 2004.
Revenues from our South Central region were $552 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to
$418 million for the same period in 2004, an increase of
$134 million. Revenues for the year ended December 31,
2005 included $330 million in energy revenues, of which 62%
were contracted. This compares to $219 million of energy
revenues for the year ended December 31, 2004, 73% of which
were contracted. This increase of $111 million in energy
revenues and the lower percentage contracted was due to
increased merchant energy sales following higher power prices,
favorable weather, and nuclear plant outages in the region.
Also, a
round-the-clock 100 MW
sale to Entergy and a tolling agreement which at times provided
power that could be resold at a higher price helped to boost
merchant revenues. Other revenues include physical gas sales and
Fresh Start-related contract amortization. For the year ended
December 31, 2005, other revenues totaled $37 million
compared to $16 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004, with the increase due to
$23 million increase in physical gas sales related to a new
gas sale agreement entered into in July 2005. We entered into
this agreement in conjunction with power purchase agreements to
minimize our market purchases during peak months.
South Centrals cost of energy increased by
$145 million for the year ended December 31, 2005
compared to the same period in 2004. Of this amount,
$114 million is due to higher purchased energy costs.
During 2005, our Big Cajun II facility experienced a number
of forced outages, encountered high demand from the
Regions long-term contracts, and entered into
100-MW
around-the-clock sale
to Entergy, and a tolling agreement, all of which required the
purchase of energy to meet contract load obligations. Purchased
energy per MWh increased by 238% versus the same period in 2004.
Additionally, due to the extreme weather conditions and
increasing gas prices, the average purchased energy price
increased $18.20 per MWh for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as compared to the same period in 2004.
Other operating expenses increased by $33 million for the
year ended December 31, 2005 compared to the same period in
2004, with $16 million of the increase related to increased
planned and unplanned outages at our Big Cajun II facility,
and $13 million related to regional office and the new NRG
allocation methodology discussed in Item 15
Note 21, Segment Reporting, to the Consolidated
Financial Statements.
For the year ended December 31, 2005, the Western region
realized an operating loss of $6 million, as compared to an
operating loss of $9 million for the same period in 2004, a
reduction of $3 million in our loss.
92
This reduction is due to the payment of CAISO penalties paid by
our Red Bluff and Chowchilla facilities in 2004, offset by the
expiration of the Red Bluff RMR contract as of December 31,
2004.
|
|
|
Other North America Region Results |
For the year ended December 31, 2005, the Other North
America region realized an operating loss of $28 million on
revenues of $15 million, as compared to an operating loss
of $5 million and revenues of $94 million for the year
ended December 31, 2004. This unfavorable variance is
primarily related to the sale of Kendall and the expiration of a
tolling agreement at our Rockford facility. Both Kendall and
Rockford had operating income of $3 million each, for the
year ended December 31, 2004 and revenues of
$73 million and $15 million, respectively. Other
operating expenses and depreciation and amortization for our
Other North America region for the year ended December 31,
2005 were $16 million and $7 million, respectively.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, other operating
expenses and depreciation and amortization were $42 million
and $21 million, respectively. The favorable variance in
both of these is due to the sale of Kendall.
For the year ended December 31, 2005, the Australia region
realized an operating loss of $7 million, as compared to an
operating loss of $5 million for the same period in 2004.
Unseasonably mild weather and weak pool prices in the first
quarter drove the unfavorable results as compared to last year.
Higher generation for the year ended December 31, 2005
helped to offset weak pool prices, with generation increasing 6%
over 2004.
Revenues from our Australia region totaled $212 million for
the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to
$181 million for the year ended December 31, 2004, an
increase of approximately $31 million, with $7 million
as a result of the strengthening Australian dollar in 2005.
Energy revenues decreased by $15 million primarily due to
the weak pool prices experienced in the first quarter of the
year. An unseasonably mild summer in Australia drove the average
annualized pool price down to $23 per MWh from $30 per
MWh in 2004, a reduction of 26%. This decrease was offset by
$18 million of financial revenues, representing the settled
value of financial instruments, including financial swaps on
power, and $10 million of higher derivative revenues,
representing the change in fair value of forward sales of
electricity and fuel. Additionally, 5% higher generation due to
fewer planned outage hours at the Osborne Power Station in 2005
and the full commercialization of the Playford station during
the fourth quarter of 2004, helped to offset the impact of the
lower pool prices. For the year ended December 31, 2005,
other revenues totaled $25 million compared to
$7 million of other revenues for the same period in 2004.
Other revenues were favorably impacted by lower contract
amortization of $15 million in 2005 as a significant
contract was canceled in 2004.
Fuel costs increased by $14 million, with $10 million
of this related to an 18% increase in purchased power from
Osborne Power Station in 2005 and $3 million due to
additional gas expenses to support these higher generation
levels. These increased costs are offset by increased revenue
from merchant electricity and gas sales in 2005 related to our
Osborne plant. Fuel oil costs in 2005 were approximately
$1 million higher due to a combination of increased world
oil prices and increased starts at Playford.
Other operating expenses for Australia for the year ended
December 31, 2005 increased by $16 million over the
same period in 2004. Operating and maintenance expense increased
by $10 million in 2005 with $3 million attributable to
the strengthening Australian dollar. Increased operational and
maintenance costs relating to our Playford power station in
addition to higher coal production costs to support the higher
generation levels led to a further $2 million increase.
Significant increases in world oil prices over the
2005 year resulted in $1 million of additional costs
related to coal mining and delivery. Labor costs at Flinders
93
were up approximately $1 million, a combination of
increasing provision levels for workers compensation claims and
increased charges relating to pension charges. Additionally, due
to the new NRG allocations methodology as discussed in
Item 15 Note 21, Segment Reporting,
to the Consolidated Financial Statements, the Australia region
incurred $6 million in higher corporate allocations as
compared to 2004.
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2004 Compared to the
Year Ended December 31, 2003 |
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded net
income of $186 million, or $1.85 per weighted average
share of diluted common stock. These favorable results occurred
despite a challenging market environment in 2004. Unseasonably
mild weather, high volatility on forward markets and
disappointing spot power prices summarize 2004s events.
The NOAA has ranked the mean average temperatures over the past
110 years by season for each of the lower 48 states.
The year 2004 started with the winter being colder than normal
in the east coast followed by a spring, summer and fall which
were among the mildest in the last 110 years throughout
most of the United States. Although mild weather in the North
America market kept spot market on-peak power prices were low
throughout most of the year, relatively high gas and oil prices
kept spark spreads on coal-based assets positive.
The overall perception that there would be significant
production losses due to Hurricane Ivan ignited a strong
pre-heating season rally in natural gas futures during the early
fourth quarter. While power prices tracked changes in natural
gas prices, this movement was not one for one. As a result, our
spark spreads on coal-based generation increased dramatically
with the fall 2004 changes in gas prices. During this period we
sold forward 2005 power locking in these spark spreads. Forward
power prices have fallen considerably from the highs set in
October, and many of those forward sales, which were
marked-to-market
through earnings, significantly contributed to the
$57 million unrealized gain recorded in revenue for the
year ended December 31, 2004 and as more fully described in
Item 15 Note 15 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements. The majority of the unrealized gains
relate to forward sales of electricity which were realized in
2005. These gains were offset by our South Central regions
results, which were negatively impacted by an unplanned outage
in the fourth quarter forcing us to purchase power to meet our
contract supply obligations. Our results were also favorably
impacted by the FERC-approved settlement agreement between NRG
Energy and Connecticut Light & Power, or CL&P, and
others concerning the congestion and losses obligation
associated with a prior standard offer service contract, whereby
we received $38 million in settlement proceeds in July
2004. The 2004 results were also positively impacted by
$160 million in equity earnings of unconsolidated
affiliates including $69 million from our interest in West
Coast Power which benefited from warmer than normal temperatures
during the year. Impairment charges of $45 million
negatively impacted net income; of which $27 million
relates to the Kendall asset.
During the period December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003, we recognized net income of
$11 million or $0.11 per share of common stock. From
an overall operational perspective our facilities were
profitable during this period. Our results were adversely
impacted by our having to continue to satisfy the standard offer
service contract that we entered into with CL&P in 2000. As
a result of our inability to terminate this contract during our
bankruptcy proceeding, we continued to be exposed to losses
under this contract. These losses were incurred, as we were
unable to satisfy the requirements of this contract at a
price/cost below the contracted sales price. Upon our adoption
of Fresh Start, we recorded at fair value, all assets and
liabilities on our opening balance sheet and accordingly we
recorded as an obligation the fair value of the CL&P
contract. During the period December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003, we recognized as revenues the entire
fair value of this contract effectively offsetting the actual
losses incurred under this contract. The CL&P contract
terminated on December 31, 2003.
During the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003, we recorded net income of $2.8 billion. Net income
for the period is directly attributable to our emerging from
bankruptcy and adopting the Fresh
94
Start provisions of
SOP 90-7. Upon the
confirmation of our Plan of Reorganization and our emergence
from bankruptcy, we were able to remove significant amounts of
long-term debt and other pre-petition obligations from our
balance sheet. Accordingly, as part of net income, we recorded a
net gain of $3.9 billion (comprised of a $4.2 billion
gain from continuing operations and a $0.3 billion loss
from discontinued operations) as the impact of our adopting
Fresh Start in our statement of operations. $6 billion of
this amount is directly related to the forgiveness of debt and
settlement of substantial amounts of our pre-petition
obligations upon our emergence from bankruptcy. In addition to
the removal of substantial amounts of pre-petition debt and
other obligations from our balance sheet, we also revalued our
assets and liabilities to fair value. Accordingly, we
substantially wrote down the value of our fixed assets. We
recorded a net $1.6 billion charge related to the
revaluation of our assets and liabilities within the Fresh Start
Reporting adjustment line of our consolidated statement of
operations. In addition to our adjustments related to our
emergence from bankruptcy, we also recorded substantial charges
related to other items such as the settlement of certain
outstanding litigation in the amount of $463 million, write
downs and losses on the sale of equity investments of
$147 million, advisor costs and legal fees directly
attributable to our being in bankruptcy of $198 million and
$237 million of other asset impairment and restructuring
costs incurred prior to our filing for bankruptcy. Net income
for the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003 was favorably impacted by our not recording interest
expense on substantial amounts of corporate level debt while we
were in bankruptcy and by the continued favorable results
experienced by our equity investments.
|
|
|
Revenues from Majority-Owned Operations |
Our revenues from majority-owned operations were
$2.3 billion for the year ended December 31, 2004
which included $1.4 billion of energy revenues,
$612 million of capacity revenues, $175 million of
alternative energy revenues, $21 million of O&M fees,
$76 million of hedging and risk management activities and
$99 million other revenues.
Revenues from majority-owned operations for the year ended
December 31, 2004, were driven primarily by our North
American operations, primarily our Northeast facilities. Our
wholly-owned North America assets generated approximately
29 million MWh during the year 2004 with the Northeast
region representing 46% of these MWhs. Of the total
$1.4 billion in energy revenues, the Northeast region
represented 62%. Our energy revenues were favorably impacted by
the FERC-approved settlement agreement between us and CL&P
and others, whereby we received $38 million in settlement
proceeds in July 2004. These settlement proceeds are included in
the All Other segment in the energy revenue category. South
Centrals energy revenues are driven by our ability to sell
merchant energy, which is dependent upon available generation
from our coal-based Louisiana Generating company after serving
our co-op customer and long-term customer load obligations.
Since our load obligation is primarily residential load, our
merchant opportunities are largely available in the off-peak
hours of the day. Our Australian operations were favorably
impacted by strong market prices driven by gas restrictions in
January, record high temperatures in February and March, and
favorable foreign exchange movements. Our capacity revenues are
largely driven by our Northeast and South Central facilities.
Our South Central and New York City assets earned 30% and 26% of
our total capacity revenues, respectively. In the Northeast, our
Connecticut facilities continue to benefit from the cost-based
reliability must-run, or RMR agreements, which were authorized
by FERC as of January 17, 2004 and approved by FERC on
January 27, 2005. The agreements entitle us to
approximately $7 million of capacity revenues per month
until January 1, 2006, the LICAP implementation date. In
the South Central region, our long-term contracts provide for
capacity payments. Other North American capacity revenues were
generated by our Kendall operation, which had a long-term
tolling agreement. During this period we also experienced a
favorable impact on our revenues due to the
mark-to-market on
certain of our derivative contracts wherein we have recognized
$57 million in unrealized gains. This gain is related to
our Northeast assets and is included in the hedging and risk
management activities. Included in Other Revenue in the
Northeast are the cost reimbursement funds under the RMR
agreement for our Connecticut assets. Our revenues during this
period include net charges of $35 million of non-cash
amortization of the fair values of various executory contracts
recorded on our balance sheet upon our adoption of the Fresh
Start provisions of
SOP 90-7 in
December 2003.
95
Our revenues from majority-owned operations were
$137 million for the period December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003.
Revenues from majority-owned operations were $1.8 billion
for the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003 and include approximately $910 million of energy
revenues, $566 million of capacity revenues,
$82 million of alternative energy, $13 million of
O&M fees, $19 million of hedging and risk management
activities and $208 million other revenues. Revenues from
majority-owned operations during the period ended
December 5, 2003, were driven primarily by our North
American operations and to a lesser degree by our international
operations, primarily Australia. Our domestic Northeast and
South Central power generation operations significantly
contributed to our revenues due primarily to favorable market
prices resulting from strong fuel and electricity prices. Our
Australian operations were favorably impacted by foreign
exchange rates. During this period we also experienced an
unfavorable impact on our revenues due to continued losses on
our CL&P standard offer contract and the
mark-to-market on
certain of our derivatives.
|
|
|
Cost of Majority-Owned Operations |
Our cost of majority-owned operations for the year ended
December 31, 2004 was $1.5 billion or 63% of revenues
from majority-owned operations. Cost of majority-owned
operations consist of $1.006 billion of cost of energy
(primarily fuel and purchased energy costs), or 43% of revenues
from majority-owned operations and $483 million of
operating expenses, or 21% of revenues from majority-owned
operations. Operating expenses consist of $207 million of
labor related costs, $235 million of operating and
maintenance costs, $38 million of non-income based taxes
and $3 million of asset retirement obligation accretion.
Fuel related costs include $476 million in coal costs,
$233 million in natural gas costs, $105 million in
fuel oil costs, $39 million in transmission and
transportation expenses, $100 million of purchased energy
costs, $35 million in other costs and $18 million in
non-cash
SO2
emission credit amortization resulting from Fresh Start
accounting. The Northeast region consumed 50%, 64% and 91% of
total coal, natural gas and oil expenditures, respectively. The
South Central region, which is comprised mainly of our Louisiana
base-loaded coal plant, consumed 32% of our total coal
expenditures.
Operating expenses related to continuing operations for the year
ended December 31, 2004 were $483 million or 21% of
revenues from majority-owned operations. Operating expenses
include labor, normal and major maintenance costs, environmental
and safety costs, utilities costs, and non-income based taxes.
Labor costs include regular, overtime and contract costs at our
plants and totaled $207 million. The Northeast region,
where the majority of our assets reside, represents 53% of total
labor costs; Australia represents 18%, while our South Central
region represents 12%. Of the total O&M costs, normal and
major maintenance at our plants accounted for $176 million,
or 36% of total operating costs. Maintenance costs were largely
driven by planned outages across our fleet, and the low-sulfur
coal conversion in western New York. The Northeast region
represented over half of the normal and major maintenance, with
a total of $99 million in costs in 2004 while Australia had
$40 million in normal and major maintenance, or 23%.
Operating expenses were positively impacted by a $7 million
favorable settlement with a vendor regarding auxiliary power
charges. Non-income based taxes totaled $38 million net of
$35 million in property tax credits, primarily associated
with an enterprise zone program.
Cost of majority-owned operations was $95 million, or 69%
of revenues from majority-owned operations for the period
December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003. Cost of
energy for this period was $63 million or 46% of revenues
from majority-owned operations and operating expenses were
$32 million, or 23% of revenues from majority-owned
operations. Labor during this period totaled $11 million.
Normal and major maintenance
96
was $12 million with 67% of the total normal and major
maintenance for this time period coming from our Northeast
region.
Cost of majority-owned operations was $1.4 billion, or 75%
of revenues from majority-owned operations for the period
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003. Cost
of majority-owned operations was unfavorably impacted by
increased generation in the Northeast region, partially offset
by a reduction in trading and hedging activity resulting from a
reduction in our power marketing activities. Our international
operations were impacted by an unfavorable movement in foreign
exchange rates and continued
mark-to-market of the
Osborne contract at Flinders resulting from lower pool prices.
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
Our depreciation and amortization expense related to continuing
operations for the year ended December 31, 2004 was
$208 million. Depreciation and amortization consists
primarily of the allocation of our historical depreciable fixed
asset costs over the remaining lives of such property. Upon
adoption of Fresh Start, we were required to revalue our fixed
assets to fair value and determine new remaining lives for such
assets. Our fixed assets were written down substantially upon
our emergence from bankruptcy. We also determined new remaining
depreciable lives, which are, on average, shorter than what we
had previously used primarily due to the age and condition of
our fixed assets.
Depreciation and amortization expense for the period
December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 was
$12 million. Depreciation and amortization expense consists
of the allocation of our newly valued basis in our fixed assets
over newly determined remaining fixed asset lives.
Our depreciation and amortization expense related to continuing
operations for the period January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003 was $211 million. During this period,
depreciation expense was unfavorably impacted by the shortening
of the depreciable lives of certain of our domestic power
generation facilities located in the Northeast region and the
impact of recently completed construction projects. The
depreciable lives of certain of our Northeast facilities,
primarily our Connecticut facilities, were shortened to reflect
economic developments in that region. Certain capitalized
development costs were written-off in connection with the Loy
Yang project resulting in increased expense. Amortization
expense increased due to reducing the life of certain software
costs.
|
|
|
General, Administrative and Development |
Our general, administrative and development costs related to
continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2004
were $210 million. Of this total, $111 million or 5%
of revenues from majority-owned operations represents our
corporate costs, with the remaining $99 million
representing costs at our plant operations. Corporate costs are
primarily comprised of corporate labor, external professional
support, such as legal, accounting and audit fees, and office
expenses. Corporate general, administrative and development
expenses were negatively impacted this year by increased legal
fees, increased audit costs and increased consulting costs due
to our Sarbanes Oxley testing and implementation. Plant general,
administrative and development costs primarily include insurance
and external consulting costs. Plant insurance costs were
$41 million. Additionally, we recorded $12 million in
bad debt expense related to notes receivable.
General, administrative and development costs were
$13 million, or 10% of revenues from continuing operations
for the period December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003.
These costs are primarily comprised of corporate labor,
insurance and external professional support, such as legal,
accounting and audit fees.
97
Our general, administrative and development costs related to
continuing operations for the period January 1, 2003 to
December 5, 2003 were $170 million or 10% of revenues
from majority-owned operations. These costs are primarily
comprised of corporate labor, insurance and external
professional support, such as legal, accounting and audit fees.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded other
charges of $48 million, which consisted of $16 million
of corporate relocation charges, $13 million of
reorganization credits and $45 million of restructuring and
impairment charges.
For the period December 6, 2003 through December 31,
2003 we recorded $2 million of reorganization charges.
During the period January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003,
we recorded other credits of $3.3 billion, which consisted
primarily of $229 million related to asset impairments,
$463 million related to legal settlements,
$198 million related to reorganization charges and
$8 million related to restructuring charges. We also
incurred a $4.2 billion credit related to Fresh Start
adjustments.
Other charges (credits) consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Predecessor Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
198 |
|
Impairment charges
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
229 |
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Fresh Start adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,220 |
) |
Legal settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
48 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
$ |
(3,322 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate Relocation Charges |
On March 16, 2004, we announced plans to implement a new
regional business strategy and structure. The new structure
called for a reorganized leadership team and a corporate
headquarters relocation to Princeton, New Jersey. The corporate
headquarters staff were streamlined as part of the relocation,
as functions were either reduced or shifted to the regions. As
of December 31, 2005, the transition of the corporate
headquarters is complete. During the year ended
December 31, 2004, we recorded $16 million for charges
related to our corporate relocation activities, primarily for
employee severance and termination benefits and employee related
transition costs. These charges are classified separately in our
statement of operations, in accordance with
SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated
with Exit or Disposal Activities. See
Item 15 Note 8 to our consolidated
financial statements for more information.
Costs not classified separately as relocation charges include
rent expense of our temporary office in Princeton, construction
costs of our new office and certain labor costs. All costs
relating to the corporate relocation that are not classified
separately as relocation charges, except for approximately
$6 million of
98
related capital expenditures will be expensed as incurred and
included in general, administrative and development expenses.
Cash expenditures for 2004, including capital expenditures, were
$22 million.
We recognized a curtailment gain of approximately
$1 million on our defined benefit pension plan in the
fourth quarter of 2004, as a substantial number of our current
headquarters staff left the Company in this period.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded a net
credit of $13 million related primarily to the settlement
of obligations recorded under Fresh Start. We incurred
$7 million of professional fees associated with the
bankruptcy which offset $20 million of credits associated
with creditor settlements. For the periods December 6, 2003
to December 31, 2003 and January 1, 2003 to
December 5, 2003, we incurred $2 million and
$198 million, respectively, in reorganization costs. All
reorganization costs have been incurred since we filed for
bankruptcy in May 2003. Also see Item 15
Note 8 for a tabular description of expenses.
We review the recoverability of our long-lived assets in
accordance with the guidelines of SFAS No. 144. As a
result of this review, we recorded impairment charges of
$45 million and $229 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004 and the period January 1, 2003
through December 5, 2003, respectively, as shown in the
table below. Of the $45 million total in 2004, Kendall and
the Meriden turbine accounted for $27 million and
$15 million, respectively. We successfully completed the
sale of Kendall in November 2004 and expect to complete the sale
of the Meriden turbines in 2006. There were no impairment
charges for the period December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003.
To determine whether an asset was impaired, we compared
asset-carrying values to total future estimated undiscounted
cash flows. If an asset was determined to be impaired based on
the cash flow testing performed, an impairment loss was recorded
to write down the asset to its fair value.
See Item 15 Note 8 for a list of
impairment charges (credits) for the year ended
December 31, 2004 and the period January 1, 2003 to
December 5, 2003.
We incurred $8 million of employee separation costs and
advisor fees during the period January 1, 2003 until we
filed for bankruptcy in May 2003. Subsequent to that date we
recorded all advisor fees as reorganization costs.
99
During the fourth quarter of 2003, we recorded a net credit of
$3.9 billion (comprised of a $4.2 billion gain from
continuing operations and a $0.3 billion loss from
discontinued operations) in connection with fresh start
adjustments. Following is a summary of the significant effects
of the reorganization and Fresh Start:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
Discharge of corporate level debt
|
|
$ |
5,162 |
|
Discharge of other liabilities
|
|
|
811 |
|
Establishment of creditor pool
|
|
|
(1,040 |
) |
Receivable from Xcel
|
|
|
640 |
|
Revaluation of fixed assets
|
|
|
(1,392 |
) |
Revaluation of equity investments
|
|
|
(207 |
) |
Valuation of SO
2
emission credits
|
|
|
374 |
|
Valuation of out of market contracts, net
|
|
|
(400 |
) |
Fair market valuation of debt
|
|
|
108 |
|
Valuation of pension liabilities
|
|
|
(61 |
) |
Other valuation adjustments
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total Fresh Start adjustments
|
|
|
3,895 |
|
|
Less discontinued operations
|
|
|
(325 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total Fresh Start adjustments continuing operations
|
|
$ |
4,220 |
|
|
|
|
|
During the period January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003,
we recorded $463 million of legal settlement charges which
consisted of the following. We recorded $396 million in
connection with the resolution of an arbitration claim asserted
by FirstEnergy Corp. As a result of this resolution, FirstEnergy
retained ownership of the Lake Plant Assets and received an
allowed general unsecured claim of $396 million under NRG
Energys Plan of Reorganization. In November 2003, we
settled litigation with Fortistar Capital in which Fortistar
Capital released us from all litigation claims in exchange for a
$60 million pre-petition bankruptcy claim and an
$8 million post-petition bankruptcy claim. We had
previously recorded approximately $11 million in connection
with various legal disputes with Fortistar Capital; accordingly,
we recorded an additional $57 million during November 2003.
In November 2003, we settled our dispute with Dick Corporation
in connection with Meriden Gas Turbines LLC through the payment
of a general unsecured claim and a post-petition
pre-confirmation payment. This settlement resulted in our
recording an additional liability of $8 million in November
2003.
In August 1995, we entered into a Marketing, Development and
Joint Proposing Agreement, or the Marketing Agreement, with
Cambrian Energy Development LLC, or Cambrian. Various claims
arose in connection with the Marketing Agreement. In November
2003, we entered into a settlement agreement with Cambrian where
we agreed to transfer our 100% interest in three gasco projects
(NEO Ft. Smith, NEO Phoenix and NEO Woodville) and our 50%
interest in two genco projects (MM Phoenix and MM Woodville) to
Cambrian. In addition, we paid approximately $2 million in
settlement of royalties incurred in connection with the
Marketing Agreement. We had previously recorded a liability for
royalties owed to Cambrian, therefore, we recorded an additional
$1 million during November 2003.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded other
expense of $167 million. Other expense consisted primarily
of $266 million of interest expense, $72 million of
refinancing-related expenses, $16 million of write downs
and losses on sales of equity method investments, offset by
$160 million of equity in
100
earnings of unconsolidated affiliates (including
$69 million from our investment in West Coast Power LLC)
and $27 million of other income, net.
Other income (expense) for the period December 6, 2003
through December 31, 2003, was an expense of
$5 million and consisted primarily of $19 million of
interest expense, partially offset by $14 million of equity
in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates.
During the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003, we recorded other expense of $265 million. Other
expense consisted primarily of $308 million of interest
expense and $147 million of write downs and losses on sales
of equity method investments, partially offset by equity in
earnings of unconsolidated affiliates of $171 million and
$19 million of other income, net.
|
|
|
Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Affiliates |
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded
$160 million of equity earnings from our investments in
unconsolidated affiliates. Our equity in earnings of WCP
comprised $69 million of this amount with our equity in
earnings of Enfield, MIBRAG, and Gladstone comprising
$28 million, $21 million, and $17 million,
respectively. Our investment in WCP generated favorable results
due to the pricing under the CDWR contract. Additionally,
revenues from ancillary services revenue and minimum load cost
compensation power positively contributed to WCPs
operating results. However, our equity earnings in the project
as reported in our results of operations have been reduced by a
net $116 million to reflect a non-cash basis adjustment for
in the money contracts resulting from adoption of Fresh Start.
NRG Energys equity earnings were also favorably impacted
by $23 million of unrealized gain related to our Enfield
investment. This gain is associated with changes in the fair
value of energy-related derivative instruments not accounted for
as hedges in accordance with SFAS No. 133.
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates of
$14 million for the period December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003 consists primarily of equity earnings
from our 50% ownership in WCP of $9 million.
During the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003, we recorded $171 million of equity earnings from
investments in unconsolidated affiliates. Our 50% investment in
WCP comprised $99 million of this amount with our
investments in the MIBRAG, Loy Yang, Gladstone and Rocky Road
projects comprising $22 million, $18 million,
$12 million and $7 million, respectively, with the
remaining amounts attributable to various domestic and
international equity investments.
101
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates consists of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6, 2003 | |
|
|
January 1, 2003 | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
Through | |
|
|
Through | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
December 5, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
WCP
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
MIBRAG
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Enfield
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Gladstone
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Rocky Road
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
James River
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
NRG Saguaro
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Scudder LA Trust
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
NRG National
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Loy Yang
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
Other
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Affiliates
|
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
|
$ |
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write Downs and Losses on Sales of Equity Method
Investments |
As part of our periodic review of our equity method investments
for impairments, we have taken write downs and losses on sales
of equity method investments during the year ended
December 31, 2004 of $16 million and $147 million
for the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003. Our Commonwealth Atlantic Limited Partnership
(CALP) and James River investments were written down based
on indicative market bids. The sale of CALP closed in the fourth
quarter of 2004, while the sale agreement for James River has
been terminated. There were no write downs and losses on sales
of equity method investments for the period December 6,
2003 through December 31, 2003.
Further details as to write downs and losses (gains) on
sales of equity method investments recorded in the consolidated
statement of operations are detailed in Item 15
Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded
$27 million of other income, net, consisting primarily of
interest income earned on notes receivable and cash balances.
For the period December 6, 2003 through December 31,
2003 we recorded an immaterial amount of other income.
During the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003, we recorded $19 million of other income, net. During
this period other income, net consisted primarily of interest
income earned on notes receivable and cash balances, offset in
part by the unfavorable
mark-to-market on our
corporate level £160 million note that was cancelled
in connection with our bankruptcy proceedings.
102
Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2004 was
$266 million, consisting of interest expense on both our
project- and corporate-level interest-bearing debt. Significant
amounts of our corporate-level debt were forgiven upon our
emergence from bankruptcy and we refinanced significant amounts
of our project-level debt with corporate level high yield notes
and term loans in December 2003. Also included in interest
expense is the amortization of debt financing costs of
$9 million related to our corporate level debt and
$13 million of amortization expense related primarily to
debt discounts and premiums recorded as part of Fresh Start.
Interest expense also includes the impact of any interest rate
swaps that we have entered in order to manage our exposure to
changes in interest rates.
Interest expense for the period December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003 of $19 million consists primarily of
interest expense at the corporate level, primarily related to
the Second Priority Notes, term loan facility and revolving line
of credit used to refinance certain project-level financings. In
addition, interest expense includes the amortization of deferred
financing costs incurred as a result of our refinancing efforts
and the amortization of discounts and premiums recorded upon the
marking of our debt to fair value upon our adoption of the Fresh
Start provision of
SOP 90-7.
Interest expense for the period January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003 of $308 million consisted of interest
expense on both our project and corporate level interest bearing
debt. In addition, interest expense includes the amortization of
debt issuance costs and any interest rate swap termination
costs. Interest expense during this period was favorably
impacted by our ceasing to record interest expense on debt where
it was probable that such interest would not be paid, such as
the NRG Energy corporate level debt (primarily bonds) and the
NRG Finance Company debt (construction revolver) due to our
entering into bankruptcy in May 2003. We did not however cease
to record interest expense on the project-level debt outstanding
at our Northeast Generating and South Central Generating
facilities even though these entities were also in bankruptcy as
these claims were deemed to be most likely not impaired and not
subject to compromise. We also recorded substantial amounts of
fees and costs related to our acquiring a debtor in possession
financing arrangement while we were in bankruptcy. In addition,
upon our emergence from bankruptcy we wrote off any remaining
deferred finance costs related to our corporate and
project-level debt including our Northeast and South Central
project-level debt as it was probable that they would be
refinanced upon our emergence from bankruptcy. Interest expense
was unfavorably impacted by an adverse
mark-to-market on
certain interest rate swaps that we have entered in order to
manage our exposure to changes in interest rates. Due to our
deteriorating financial condition during such period, hedge
accounting treatment was ceased for certain of our interest rate
swaps, causing changes in fair value to be recorded as interest
expense.
Refinancing expense was $72 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004. This amount includes $15 million of
prepayment penalties and a $15 million write-off of
deferred financing costs related to refinancing certain amounts
of our term loans with additional corporate level high yield
notes in January 2004 and $14 million of prepayment
penalties and a $27 million write-off of deferred financing
costs related to refinancing the senior credit facility in
December 2004.
Our income tax provision from continuing operations was
$65 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 and
an income tax benefit of ($1) million for the period
December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003. The
overall effective tax rate in 2004 and the short period in 2003
was 28.7% and (6.2%), respectively. The
103
change in our effective tax rate was primarily due to a state
tax refund received from Xcel Energy in 2003 and foreign income
taxed in jurisdictions with tax rates different from the
U.S. statutory rate.
Our net deferred tax assets at December 31, 2004 were
offset by a full valuation allowance in accordance with
SFAS No. 109. Under
SOP 90-7, any
future benefits from reducing a valuation allowance from
pre-confirmation deferred tax assets are required to be reported
first as an adjustment of identifiable intangible assets and
then as a direct addition to paid in capital versus a benefit on
our statement of operations.
The effective tax rate may vary from year to year depending on,
among other factors, the geographic and business mix of earnings
and losses. These same and other factors, including history of
pre-tax earnings and losses, are taken into account in assessing
the ability to realize deferred tax assets.
Income tax expense for the period January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003 was $38 million. The overall
effective tax rate for the period ended December 5, 2003
was 1.3%. The rate is lower than the U.S. statutory rate
primarily due to a release in valuation allowance for net
operating loss carryforwards that were utilized following our
emergence from bankruptcy to offset the current tax on
cancellation of debt income.
Income taxes have been recorded on the basis that our
U.S. subsidiaries and we would file separate federal income
tax returns for the period January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003. Since our U.S. subsidiaries and we
were not included in the Xcel Energy consolidated tax group,
each of our U.S. subsidiaries that is classified as a
corporation for U.S. income tax purposes filed a separate
federal income tax return. It is uncertain if, on a stand-alone
basis, we would be able to fully realize deferred tax assets
related to net operating losses and other temporary differences,
therefore a full valuation allowance has been established.
|
|
|
Income From Discontinued Operations, net of Income Taxes |
We classified as discontinued operations the operations and
gains/losses recognized on the sale of projects that were sold
or were deemed to have met the required criteria for such
classification pending final disposition. During the year ended
December 31, 2004, we recorded income from discontinued
operations, net of income taxes, of approximately
$25 million. During the year ended December 31, 2004
and for the period December 6, 2003 to December 31,
2003, discontinued operations consisted of the results of our
NRG McClain LLC, Penobscot Energy Recovery Company, or PERC,
Compania Boliviana De Energia Electrica S.A. Bolivian Power
Company Limited, or Cobee, Hsin Yu, LSP Energy (Batesville),
four NEO Corporation projects (NEO Nashville LLC, NEO Hackensack
LLC, NEO Prima Deshecha LLC and NEO Tajiguas LLC), Northbrook
New York LLC, Northbrook Energy LLC and Audrain Generating LLC.
All other discontinued operations were disposed of in prior
periods. The $25 million income from discontinued
operations includes a gain of $22 million, net of income
taxes of $8 million, related primarily to the dispositions
of Batesville, Cobee and Hsin Yu.
Discontinued operations for the period December 6, 2003
through December 31, 2003 is comprised of a loss of less
than a million dollars attributable to the on going operations
of our McClain, PERC, Cobee, LSP Energy, Hsin Yu, four NEO
Corporation projects (NEO Nashville LLC, NEO Hackensack LLC, NEO
Prima Deshecha LLC and NEO Tajiguas LLC) and Audrain Generating
LLC. The financial results of Northbrook New York LLC and
Northbrook Energy LLC have not been reclassified as discontinued
operations in the consolidated statement of operations and the
consolidated statement of cash flows, for the period
December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 due to
immateriality.
As of December 5, 2003, we classified as discontinued
operations the operations and gains/losses recognized on the
sales of projects that were sold or were deemed to have met the
required criteria for such
104
classification pending final disposition. For the period
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003, discontinued
operations consist of the historical operations and net
gains/losses related to our Killingholme, McClain, PERC, Cobee,
NEO Landfill Gas, Inc., or NLGI, seven NEO Corporation projects
(NEO Nashville LLC, NEO Hackensack LLC, NEO Prima Deshecha LLC,
NEO Tajiguas LLC, NEO Ft. Smith LLC, NEO Woodville LLC and
NEO Phoenix LLC), Timber Energy Resources, Inc., or TERI, Cahua,
Energia Pacasmayo, LSP Energy, Hsin Yu projects and Audrain
Generating LLC. Prior to December 6, 2003, Northbrook New
York LLC and Northbrook NewYork LLC were unconsolidated
affiliates because the ownership structure prevented us from
exercising a controlling influence over operating and financial
policies of the projects.
For the period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003, the results of operations related to such discontinued
operations was a net loss of $316 million due to a net loss
of results of operations from discontinued operations of Audrain
Generating LLC of $133 million, loss on the sale of our
Peru projects, impairment charges of $101 million and
$24 million, respectively, recorded at McClain and NLGI and
fresh start adjustments at LSP Energy.
|
|
|
Reorganization and Emergence from Bankruptcy |
On May 14, 2003, we and 25 of our U.S. affiliates,
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, or the
Bankruptcy Code, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, or the bankruptcy court.
On May 15, 2003, NRG Energy, PMI, NRG Finance Company I
LLC, NRGenerating Holdings (No. 23) B.V. and NRG Capital
LLC filed the NRG plan of reorganization. On November 24,
2003, the bankruptcy court issued an order confirming the NRG
plan of reorganization, and the plan became effective on
December 5, 2003. On September 17, 2003, we filed the
Northeast/ South Central plan of reorganization in connection
with our Northeast and South Central subsidiaries in
Chapter 11. On November 25, 2003, the bankruptcy court
issued an order confirming the Northeast/ South Central plan of
reorganization and the plan became effective on
December 23, 2003.
|
|
|
Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization under
the Bankruptcy Code and Fresh Start |
Between May 14, 2003 and December 5, 2003, we operated
as a
debtor-in-possession
under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. Our financial
statements for reporting periods within that timeframe were
prepared in accordance with the provisions of
SOP 90-7.
For financial reporting purposes, the close of business on
December 5, 2003, represents the date of emergence from
bankruptcy. As used herein, the following terms refer to the
Company and its operations:
|
|
|
Predecessor Company
|
|
The Company, pre-emergence from bankruptcy
The Companys operations prior to December 6, 2003 |
Reorganized NRG
|
|
The Company, post-emergence from bankruptcy
The Companys operations from December 6, 2003-
December 31, 2004 |
The implementation of the NRG plan of reorganization resulted
in, among other things, a new capital structure, the
satisfaction or disposition of various types of claims against
the Predecessor Company, the assumption or rejection of certain
contracts, and the establishment of a new board of directors.
In connection with the emergence from bankruptcy, we adopted
Fresh Start in accordance with the requirements of
SOP 90-7. The
application of
SOP 90-7 resulted
in the creation of a new reporting entity. Under Fresh Start,
the enterprise value of our company was allocated among our
assets and liabilities on a basis substantially consistent with
purchase accounting in accordance with SFAS 141.
Accordingly, we pushed down the effects of this allocation to
all of our subsidiaries.
Under the requirements of Fresh Start, we have adjusted our
assets and liabilities, other than deferred income taxes, to
their estimated fair values as of December 5, 2003. As a
result of marking our assets and
105
liabilities to their estimated fair values, we determined that
there was no excess reorganization value that was reallocated
back to our tangible and intangible assets. Deferred taxes were
determined in accordance with SFAS 109. The net effect of
all Fresh Start adjustments resulted in a gain of
$3.9 billion (comprised of a $4.2 billion gain from
continuing operations and a $0.3 billion loss from
discontinued operations), which is reflected in the Predecessor
Companys results of operations for the period
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003. The
application of the Fresh Start provisions of
SOP 90-7 created a
new reporting entity having no retained earnings or accumulated
deficit.
As part of the bankruptcy process we engaged an independent
financial advisor to assist in the determination of our
reorganized enterprise value. The fair value calculation was
based on managements forecast of expected cash flows from
our core assets. Managements forecast incorporated forward
commodity market prices obtained from a third party consulting
firm. A discounted cash flow calculation was used to develop the
enterprise value of Reorganized NRG, determined in part by
calculating the weighted average cost of capital of the
Reorganized NRG. The Discounted Cash Flow, or DCF, valuation
methodology equates the value of an asset or business to the
present value of expected future economic benefits to be
generated by that asset or business. The DCF methodology is a
forward looking approach that discounts expected
future economic benefits by a theoretical or observed discount
rate. The independent financial advisors prepared a
30-year cash flow
forecast using a discount rate of approximately 11%. The
resulting reorganization enterprise value as included in the
Disclosure Statement ranged from $5.5 billion to
$5.7 billion. The independent financial advisor then
subtracted our project-level debt and made several other
adjustments to reflect the values of assets held for sale,
excess cash and collateral requirements to estimate a range of
Reorganized NRG equity value of between $2.2 billion and
$2.6 billion.
In constructing our Fresh Start balance sheet upon our emergence
from bankruptcy, we used a reorganization equity value of
approximately $2.4 billion, as we believe this value to be
the best indication of the value of the ownership distributed to
the new equity owners. Our NRG plan of reorganization provided
for the issuance of 100,000,000 shares of NRG common stock
to the various creditors resulting in a calculated price per
share of $24.04. Our reorganization value of approximately
$9.1 billion was determined by adding our reorganized
equity value of $2.4 billion, $3.7 billion of interest
bearing debt and our other liabilities of $3.0 billion. The
reorganization value represents the fair value of an entity
before liabilities and approximates the amount a willing buyer
would pay for the assets of the entity immediately after
restructuring. This value is consistent with the voting
creditors and bankruptcy courts approval of the NRG plan
of reorganization.
We recorded approximately $3.9 billion of net
reorganization income (comprised of a $4.2 billion gain
from continuing operations and a $0.3 billion loss from
discontinued operations) in the Predecessor Companys
statement of operations for 2003, which includes the gain on the
restructuring of equity and the discharge of obligations subject
to compromise for less than recorded amounts, as well as
adjustments to the historical carrying values of our assets and
liabilities to fair market value.
Due to the adoption of Fresh Start as of December 5, 2003,
the Reorganized NRG post-Fresh Start statement of operations and
statement of cash flows have not been prepared on a consistent
basis with the Predecessor Companys financial statements
and are therefore not comparable in certain respects to the
106
financial statements prior to the application of Fresh Start.
The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements have been
prepared to distinguish between Reorganized NRG and the
Predecessor Company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company | |
|
Debt Discharge | |
|
|
|
|
|
NRG | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
and Exchange | |
|
Fresh Start | |
|
|
|
December 6, | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
of Stock | |
|
Adjustments | |
|
Consolidation | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current Assets
|
|
$ |
1,718 |
|
|
$ |
614 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
2,342 |
|
Non-current Assets
|
|
|
8,172 |
|
|
|
(155 |
) |
|
|
(1,233 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
6,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
9,890 |
|
|
$ |
459 |
|
|
$ |
(1,229 |
) |
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
9,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
2,190 |
|
|
|
999 |
|
|
|
1,187 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
4,377 |
|
Non-current Liabilities
|
|
|
9,458 |
|
|
|
(6,270 |
) |
|
|
(848 |
) |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
2,386 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities
|
|
|
11,648 |
|
|
|
(5,271 |
) |
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
6,763 |
|
Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
(1,758 |
) |
|
|
2,404 |
|
|
|
1,758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
$ |
9,890 |
|
|
$ |
(2,867 |
) |
|
$ |
2,097 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
9,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APB No. 18, The Equity Method of Accounting for
Investments in Common Stock, requires us to
effectively push down the effects of Fresh Start reporting to
our unconsolidated equity method investments and to recognize an
adjustment to our share of the earnings or losses of an investee
as if the investee were a consolidated subsidiary. As a result
of pushing down the impact of Fresh Start to our West Coast
Power affiliate, we determined that a contract based intangible
asset with a one year remaining life, consisting of the value of
West Coast Powers California Department of Water Resources
energy sales contract, must be established and recognized as a
basis adjustment to our share of the future earnings generated
by West Coast Power. This adjustment reduced our equity earnings
in the approximate amount of $116 million for the year
ended December 31, 2004. This contract expired in December
2004.
|
|
|
Known trends that will affect our results in the future: |
|
|
|
Acquisition of Texas Genco and Financing
Transactions |
On February 2, 2006, NRG acquired Texas Genco LLC by
purchasing all of the outstanding equity interests in Texas
Genco pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, dated
September 30, 2005, by and among NRG, Texas Genco, and the
Sellers. Also see our detailed discussion in our Liquidity and
Capital Resources section. Texas Genco is now a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NRG, and will be managed and accounted for as a
new business segment to be referred to as NRG Texas.
In order to facilitate the acquisition of Texas Genco, we
entered into a series of financing transactions. Also see our
detailed discussion in our Liquidity and Capital Resources
section:
|
|
|
|
|
$3.575 billion Term Loan Facility |
|
|
|
$1.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility |
|
|
|
$1.0 billion Letter of Credit Facility |
|
|
|
$1.2 billion in aggregate principal amount of
7.25% Senior Notes |
|
|
|
$2.4 billion in aggregate principal amount of
7.375% Senior Notes |
|
|
|
|
|
$485 million from the issuance of 2 million shares of
5.75% Preferred Stock, net of issuance costs |
|
|
|
$985 million from the issuance of 20,855,057 shares of
our common stock, net of issuance costs |
107
These transactions also facilitated the refinancing of our
outstanding debt as well as the debt outstanding for Texas Genco
upon acquisition.
Based on our current projections, our NRG Texas segment will be
a profitable segment and will significantly increase our revenue
and operating costs going forward. Partially offsetting this
additional profit will be the increased interest expense due to
the increased debt level as shown above. We have also increased
the number of our outstanding shares by issuing approximately
35 million shares from both treasury and newly issued stock
to the Sellers, as well as approximately 21 million newly
issued shares to the public. This significant increase in
outstanding shares will dilute our future earnings per share.
At this time, we anticipate that the net effect in 2006 will be
positive to our future results of operations as well as to our
earnings per share.
|
|
|
Acquisition of Remaining 50% Equity Interest in WCP |
On December 27, 2005, we entered into purchase and sale
agreements for projects co-owned with Dynegy. Under the
agreements, we will acquire Dynegys 50% ownership interest
in WCP (Generation) Holdings, Inc., and become the sole owner of
WCPs 1,808 MW of generation in Southern California.
We anticipate that the transaction will close during the first
quarter of 2006.
As of the date of acquisition we will consolidate the results of
operations of WCP. When consolidated, the results of WCP will
increase our revenues and cost of operations, but it will reduce
our equity earnings. We anticipate that the net effect in 2006
will be positive to our results of operations.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
|
|
|
Significant Events during 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
The repurchase of $645 million in aggregate principal
amount of our Second Priority Notes, resulting in
$54 million of refinancing charges |
|
|
|
The issuance of $250 million of 3.625% Preferred Stock |
|
|
|
The execution of the Accelerated Share Repurchase Agreement
whereby we repurchased $250 million of common stock |
|
|
|
Repatriation of $298 million of foreign funds utilizing the
tax benefits of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 |
|
|
|
Cash collateral payments of $405 million supporting our
hedging activities |
|
|
|
Collection of $71 million in an arbitration award related
to TermoRio |
|
|
|
Execution of the Texas Genco Acquisition Agreement and related
financing commitments |
|
|
|
Sale of non-core assets resulting in $106 million in
proceeds |
|
|
|
The announced signing of sales and purchase agreements for the
sale of Audrain resulting in its reclassification as a
discontinued operation |
108
The following table summarizes the debt transactions during
2005 and subsequent transactions in 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance | |
|
2005 activity and | |
|
2006 activity and | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at | |
|
Outstanding at | |
|
Outstanding at | |
|
|
Date of | |
|
Original | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
February 25, | |
|
|
Transaction | |
|
Amount | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Xcel Promissory Note
|
|
|
Dec. 6, 2003 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
NRG 8% Second Priority Notes
|
|
Dec. 23, 2003- Jan. 28, 2004 |
|
|
1,725 |
|
|
|
1,725 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of Notes
|
|
|
Jan-Mar, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Early redemption
|
|
|
Feb-Sep, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(604 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Dec. 31, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of Notes
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,080 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Feb. 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
NRG Credit Facility Term loan
|
|
|
Dec. 23, 2003 |
|
|
|
950 |
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of Term Loans
|
|
|
Throughout 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Dec. 31, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepayment of Term Loan
|
|
|
Jan 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(446 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Feb. 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Letter of Credit facility
|
|
|
Dec. 23, 2003 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terminating Letter of Credit facility
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(350 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Feb. 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Corporate
Revolver*
|
|
|
Dec. 23, 2003 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terminating Corporate
Revolver*
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(150 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Feb. 25,
2006*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
New Sr. Secured Term loan
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,575 |
|
New Funded LC Facility
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
New Corporate
Revolver*
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Feb. 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,575 |
|
7.25% Senior Notes due 2014
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
7.375% Senior Notes due 2016
|
|
|
Feb. 2, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance Feb. 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,600 |
|
Total Corporate
Level Debt*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,535 |
|
|
$ |
1,886 |
|
|
$ |
7,185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
Amount indicates capacity to borrow under NRGs revolver
facilities only. Un-borrowed capacity is not included in total
corporate level debt. |
The principal sources of liquidity for our future operations and
capital expenditures are expected to be existing cash on hand,
cash flows from operations, and funds raised from new financing
arrangements.
Cash Flows from Operations. Our operating cash flows are
expected to be impacted by, among other things: (i) spark
spreads generally; (ii) commodity prices (including demand
for natural gas, coal, oil and electricity); (iii) the cost
of ordinary course operations and maintenance expenses;
(iv) planned and unplanned outages; (v) restrictions
in the declaration or payments of dividends or similar
distributions from our subsidiaries; and (vi) the timing
and nature of asset sales. Following are additional sources of
cash flows:
Letter of credit and revolver borrowing capacity. We had
approximately $38 million of undrawn letter of credit
capacity and $150 million of revolving credit capacity
under our Amended Credit Facility as of December 31, 2005.
On February 2, 2006 we terminated our Amended Credit
Agreement and entered into a new Senior Credit Facility. The new
Senior Credit Facility consists of a $3.575 billion term
loan, $1.0 billion in a synthetic letter of credit facility
and $1.0 billion in a revolver facility. Portions of the
revolving credit facility are available as a swing-line facility
and as a revolving letter of credit sub-facility. As of
March 3, 2006,
109
we had approximately $225 million of undrawn letter of
credit capacity under our senior credit facility and
$845 million of revolving credit capacity under our Senior
Credit Facility. The balance of the revolver has been used to
issue non-commercial letters of credit. See our discussion below
on the Financing Transactions and Texas Genco Acquisition in
this discussion and analysis.
Issuance of $250 million in 3.625% Preferred Stock.
On August 11, 2005, we issued 250,000 shares of 3.625%
Preferred Stock to Credit Suisse First Boston Capital LLC, or
CSFB, in a private placement. As of December 31, 2005,
250,000 shares of the 3.625% Preferred Stock were issued
and outstanding at a liquidation value, net of issuance costs of
$246 million. Holders of the 3.625% Preferred Stock are
entitled to receive, when, as and if declared by our Board of
Directors, out of funds legally available therefore, cash
dividends at the rate of 3.625% per annum, payable
quarterly in arrears on March 15, June 15, September
15 and December 15 of each year, commencing on December 14,
2005. On or after August 11, 2015, we may redeem, subject
to certain limitations, some or all of the 3.625% Preferred
Stock with cash at a redemption price equal to 100% of the
liquidation preference, plus accumulated but unpaid dividends,
including liquidated damages, if any, to the redemption date.
Proceeds from the sale of the 3.625% preferred securities along
with cash on hand were used to redeem $229 million in
Second Priority Notes, pay an early redemption penalty of
$18 million and pay accrued interest of $4 million on
the redeemed notes.
Settlements and Asset Sales. On February 15, 2005 we
received a $71 million settlement payment from Petrobras,
our former partner in our TermoRio project in Brazil. During
2005, we received approximately $106 million in proceeds
from the sale of our interest in non-core projects, including
our interest in Enfield, Northbrook New York and Northbrook
Energy and remaining interest in Kendall.
Repatriation of Foreign Funds. During the third quarter
of 2005 we repatriated approximately $298 million of
accumulated foreign earnings. Only a portion of this amount
represents the cumulative earnings and profits from the foreign
entities. Those earnings resulted in approximately
$5 million of tax expense. This repatriation was initiated
to utilize the tax benefits of the American Jobs Creation Act of
2004 which expired on December 31, 2005.
Our requirements for liquidity and capital resources, other than
for operating our facilities, can generally be categorized by
the following: (i) Commercial Operations (formerly referred
to as PMI) activities; (ii) capital expenditures;
(iii) corporate financial restructuring and
(iv) project finance requirements.
|
|
|
(i) Commercial Operations |
Commercial Operations activities comprise the single largest
requirement for liquidity and capital resources. These liquidity
requirements are primarily driven by: (i) margin and
collateral posted with counter-parties; (ii) initial
collateral required to establish trading relationships;
(iii) timing of disbursements and receipts (i.e., buying
fuel before receiving energy revenues); and (iv) initial
collateral for large structured transactions. As of
December 31, 2005, Commercial Operations had total cash
collateral outstanding of $438 million, and
$227 million outstanding in letters of credit to third
parties primarily to support our economic hedging activities.
Future liquidity requirements may change based on our hedging
activity, fuel purchases, future market conditions, including
forward prices for energy and fuel and market volatility. In
addition, liquidity requirements are dependent on our credit
ratings and general perception of creditworthiness.
Following the Acquisition, our debt instruments permit us to
grant secured priority liens on our assets to support certain
trading activities which will provide an alternative to posting
cash deposits and letters of credit. See our discussion below on
the Financing Transactions and Texas Genco Acquisition in this
discussion and analysis.
110
|
|
|
(ii) Capital Expenditures |
Capital expenditures were $106 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005, and $119 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004. Capital expenditures in 2005 related to
the continued PRB conversions, associated conveyor track and
emissions compliance upgrades at our Western New York plants.
Indian Rivers PRB conversion is underway at units 1-3.
Unit 4 at Indian River, originally targeted for conversion, was
deemed incompatible for PRB coal during 2005. Capital
expenditures in 2004 also related primarily to the conversion of
our western New York plants to PRB coal, as well as the Playford
2 refurbishment at our Flinders operation in Australia and
planned outages across our fleet.
|
|
|
(iii) Corporate Financial Restructuring |
Repurchase and redemption of Second Priority Notes during
2005. In conjunction with our goal of improving our credit
ratings we manage our capital allocation around a target of
45%-60% debt to capital ratio. As such, we may elect
periodically to modify our corporate financial structure.
Throughout 2005, we repurchased or redeemed, and subsequently
retired, $645 million of our Second Priority Notes. Total
costs associated with the repurchase and redemptions was
$52 million in early redemption premium, $9 million in
accrued but unpaid interest, and $7 million in accrued but
unpaid liquidated damages.
Redemption of Second Priority Notes and Termination of Credit
Facility during 2006. On January 31, 2006 we repaid
$446 million in outstanding principal plus $3 million
in accrued interest and terminated our term loan under our
Amended Credit Facility. On February 2, 2006, we
repurchased and retired $1.08 billion of our Second
Priority Notes, pursuant to a tender offer, paying approximately
$138 million in consent premiums and accrued interest. On
February 2, 2006 we defeased the remaining un-tendered
$0.4 million of our Second Priority Notes, effectively
terminating our obligations with respect to such Notes. Also on
February 2, 2006 we paid $1 million in accrued fees
and terminated our revolving facility and our funded letter of
credit facility under our Amended Credit Facility, and
simultaneously issued new indebtedness, as described below in
New Financing Structure and Texas Genco Acquisition in
this discussion and analysis.
Accelerated Share Repurchase Plan. On August 11,
2005, we entered into an Accelerated Share Repurchase Agreement
with CSFB, pursuant to which we repurchased $250 million of
our common stock on that date that equaled a total of
6,346,788 shares, which were held in treasury. We funded
the repurchase with cash on hand. On March 3, 2006, we paid
to CSFB a cash purchase price adjustment of approximately
$7 million based upon the weighted average value of
NRGs common stock over a period of approximately six
months, subject to a minimum price of 97% and a maximum price of
103% of the closing price per share on August 10, 2005, or
$39.39.
Preferred Dividend Payments. During 2005, we paid
approximately $17 million in four dividend payments to our
holders of our 4% Preferred Stock. On December 15, 2005, we
made an approximate $3 million dividend payment to our
3.625% preferred shareholders of record as of December 1,
2005.
|
|
|
(iv) Project Finance Requirements |
We are a holding company and conduct our operations primarily
through subsidiaries. Historically, we have utilized
project-level debt to fund a significant portion of the capital
expenditures and investments required to construct our power
plants and related assets. Consistent with our strategy, we may
seek, where available on commercially reasonable terms,
project-level debt in connection with the assets or businesses
of our affiliates, or we may develop, construct or acquire new
projects. Project-level borrowings are substantially
non-recourse to other subsidiaries, affiliates and us, and are
generally secured by the capital stock, physical assets,
contracts and cash flow of the related project subsidiary or
affiliate being financed. Some of these project financings may
require us to post collateral in the form of cash or an
acceptable letter of credit.
111
Principal on short-term debt, long-term debt and capital leases
as of December 31, 2005 are due and payable in the
following periods (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiary/Description |
|
Total | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
2010 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Xcel Energy Note
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Amended Credit Facility due
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec. 2011
|
|
|
796 |
|
|
|
796 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8% Second Priority Notes
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRG Energy Center Minneapolis, due 2013 and 2017
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
NRG Peaker Finance Co LLC
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
231 |
|
Flinders Power Finance Pty
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
Camas Pwr BLR LP Bank facility
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Camas Pwr BLR LP Bonds
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Itiquira Energetica S.A., due January 2012
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Itiquira Energetica S.A., due December 2013
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal Debt, Bonds and Notes
|
|
|
2,527 |
|
|
|
1,918 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
434 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saale Energie GmbH, Schkopau (capital lease)
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Conemaugh Fuels LLC (capital lease)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal Capital Leases
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Debt
|
|
$ |
2,741 |
|
|
$ |
1,979 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
494 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These amounts reflect scheduled amortization of principal as of
December 31, 2005, with the exception of the 8% Second
Priority Notes, and our Credit Facility, for which 2006 amounts
reflect early termination. The table below reflects the new
short-term and long-term debt amounts and the expected future
payments. Also see our discussion below on the Financing
Transactions and Texas Genco Acquisition in this discussion and
analysis, as well as Item 15 Note 17 to
the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion on
events that may affect debt payment schedules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description |
|
Total | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
2010 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
New Credit Facility due Feb 2013
|
|
$ |
3,575 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
3,405 |
|
7.25% Notes due 2014
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
7.375% Notes due 2016
|
|
|
2,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Debt
|
|
$ |
7,175 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
7,005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
We have obtained cash from operations, proceeds from repayment
of outstanding notes receivable, proceeds from the sale of
certain assets and the proceeds from the sale of preferred
stock. We have used these funds to finance operations, reduce
our outstanding Second Priority Notes, repurchase common stock
through an accelerated share repurchase plan, service debt
obligations, finance capital expenditures, and meet other cash
and liquidity needs. The following table reflects the changes in
cash flows for the comparative years and we include a detailed
discussion on the changes during the last year. All cash flow
categories include the cash flows from continuing operations and
discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6- | |
|
January 1- | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities
|
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
$ |
645 |
|
|
$ |
(589 |
) |
|
$ |
238 |
|
Net cash (used) provided by investing activities
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
(186 |
) |
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities
|
|
|
(830 |
) |
|
|
(284 |
) |
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) By Operating Activities |
For the year ended December 31, 2005, net cash provided by
operating activities decreased by $580 million compared to
the year ended December 31, 2004. This is primarily due to
the following reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
Net income decreased by $102 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2004. |
|
|
|
Due to the sharp increase in the sale price per MWh, our
derivative contract terms required collateral deposits of
$405 million during 2005, compared to $7 million
during 2004, a difference of $398 million. As of
December 31, 2005 we had collateral deposits of
$438 million and we expect $405 of this amount to be
refunded during 2006 as the underlying contracts expire. |
|
|
|
A decrease of $60 million in distributions from our equity
investments during 2005 compared to 2004. The majority of this
decrease is from our WCP investment. Since the expiration of the
CDWR contract on December 31, 2004, WCPs profit has
been significantly reduced and has subsequently distributed
$59 million less dividends during 2005 compared to 2004. |
|
|
|
Receipt of $100 million in 2004 related to the settlement
with Xcel Energy. |
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) By Investing Activities |
For the year ended December 31, 2005, net cash provided by
investing activities was $26 million less than for the year
ended December 31, 2004. This decrease is due to the
following mix of investment activities:
|
|
|
|
|
During 2004, we sold interests in non-core assets for proceeds
totaling $304 million. As most of the non-core assets were
sold during 2004 and management began focusing on different
areas of operation, during 2005 proceeds from the sale of
non-core assets fell by $198 million. |
|
|
|
Our capital expenditures were $13 million less during 2005
compared to 2004 due to lower PRB conversion expenditures. |
|
|
|
During 2005, proceeds from payments on our notes receivable
increased by $82 million, primarily due to the payment from
TermoRio of approximately $71 million as the dispute
related to this note was settled. |
113
|
|
|
|
|
In comparison to an increase of $27 million during 2004,
restricted cash balances decreased by $46 million, a
difference of $72 million. This amount is explained by the
release of approximately $38 million of restricted cash at
our Flinders facility as a result of our refinancing of
Flinders debt, as well as the release of accounts from
restrictions during post bankruptcy operations. |
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) By Financing Activities |
For the year ended December 31, 2005, net cash used by
financing activities increased by $546 million in
comparison to 2004. The activity for 2005 consisted of:
|
|
|
|
|
The redemption and repurchase of $645 million of our Second
Priority Secured Notes. In order to redeem our Second Priority
Notes, we issued $420 million of the 4% Preferred Stock in
December 2004, and subsequently, $250 million of the 3.625%
Preferred Stock in August of 2005. The timing difference between
the receipt of cash from our 4% Preferred Stock in December 2004
and the redemption of debt in 2005 is the primary reason for the
increase in cash used for financing activities in 2005 in
comparison to 2004. |
|
|
|
Our accelerated share repurchase payment of $250 million. |
|
|
|
Payment of $46 million for financing costs to refinance our
Flinders debt. |
|
|
|
Payment of $20 million of dividends to holders of our
preferred stock. |
During 2004, the primary use of funds for financing activities
was related to the repayment of project level debt at McClain of
approximately $157 million and regular debt payments of
approximately $135 million.
|
|
|
Other Liquidity Matters NOLs and Deferred Tax
Assets |
As of December 31, 2005, we U.S. NOL carryforwards of
approximately $93 million. We believe that it is more
likely than not that the benefit will not be realized on a
substantial portion of the deferred tax assets relating to
future tax benefits. This assessment includes consideration of
positive and negative factors, including our current financial
position, historical results of operations and current results
of operations, projected future taxable income, including
projected operating and capital gains, and available tax
planning strategies. Therefore, as of December 31, 2005, a
consolidated valuation allowance of $756 million was
recorded against the net deferred tax assets, in accordance with
SFAS No. 109. However, we have not provided a
valuation allowance for approximately $15 million of net
deferred tax assets which consist of
mark-to-market
adjustments per SFAS 133 and utilization of carryover net
operating losses to the extent of taxable income generated for
the year ended December 31, 2005.
|
|
|
Conclusion on Future Liquidity |
As of December 31, 2005 our liquidity was $758 million
and included $570 million of unrestricted and restricted
cash. Our liquidity also included $150 million of available
capacity under our revolving line of credit and $38 million
of availability under our letter of credit facility. As of
December 31, 2004 our liquidity was $1.6 billion and
included $1.2 billion of unrestricted and restricted cash.
Our liquidity also included $150 million of available
capacity under our revolving line of credit and
$193 million of availability under our letter of credit
facility.
Based on the new financing transactions, but assuming the cash
balances as of December 31, 2005 and the outstanding
instruments as of March 3, 2006, our liquidity would be
$1.6 billion and includes $570 million of unrestricted
and restricted cash. Our liquidity include $845 million of
available capacity under our new Revolving Credit Facility and
$225 million of availability under our new synthetic Letter
of Credit Facility, as of March 3, 2006. Please see
discussion below for further detail.
Management believes that these amounts and cash flows from
operations will be adequate to finance capital expenditures, to
fund dividends to our preferred shareholders and other liquidity
commitments for the next 12 months. Management continues to
regularly monitor the companys ability to finance the
needs of its
114
operating, financing and investing activity in a manner
consistent with its intention to maintain a debt to capital
ratio within a range of 45%-60%.
|
|
|
Known Trends and Other Factors Affecting our Liquidity |
New Financing Structure and
Texas Genco Acquisition
On February 2, 2006, NRG acquired Texas Genco LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, by purchasing all of the
outstanding equity interests in Texas Genco pursuant to the
Acquisition Agreement, dated September 30, 2005, by and
among NRG, Texas Genco, and each of the direct and indirect
owners of Texas Genco. The purchase price of approximately
$6.1 billion consisted of $4.4 billion in cash and the
issuance of approximately 35.4 million shares of NRGs
common stock valued at $1.7 billion. This amount is subject
to adjustment due to acquisition costs. The value of our common
stock issued to the Sellers was based on our average stock price
immediately before and after the closing date of
February 2, 2006. The Acquisition includes the assumption
of approximately $2.7 billion of Texas Genco debt. Texas
Genco is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG, and will be
managed and accounted for as a new business segment to be
referred to as NRG Texas.
The Texas Genco acquisition was partially funded at closing with
the combination of (i) cash proceeds received upon the
issuance and sale in a public offering of 20,855,057 shares
of NRGs common stock at a price of $48.75 per share;
(ii) cash proceeds received upon the issuance and sale of
$3.6 billion of unsecured high yield notes; (iii) cash
proceeds received upon the issuance and sale in a public
offering of 2,000,000 shares of mandatory convertible
preferred stock at a price of $250 per share;
(iv) funds borrowed under a new senior secured credit
facility consisting of a $3.575 billion term loan facility,
a $1.0 billion revolving credit facility and a
$1.0 billion synthetic letter of credit facility; and
(v) cash on hand.
Texas Genco owns approximately 11,000 MW of net operating
generation capacity, and sells power and related services in the
Texas ERCOT market.
|
|
|
New Senior Credit Facility |
On February 2, 2006, we also entered into a new senior
secured first priority credit facility with a syndicate of
financial institutions, including Morgan Stanley Senior Funding,
Inc., as administrative agent, Morgan Stanley & Co.
Inc., as collateral agent, and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding,
Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as joint lead
book-runners, joint lead arrangers and co-documentation agents
providing for up to an aggregate amount of $5.575 billion,
or the New Senior Credit Facility. The New Senior Credit
Facility consists of a $3.575 billion term loan facility,
or the Term Loan Facility, a $1.0 billion revolving
credit facility, or the Revolving Credit Facility, and a
$1.0 billion synthetic letter of credit facility, or the
Letter of Credit Facility. The New Senior Credit Facility
replaced our then existing senior secured credit facility. The
Term Loan Facility will mature on February 2, 2013 and
will amortize in 27 consecutive equal quarterly installments of
0.25% of the original principal amount of the Term
Loan Facility with the balance payable on the seventh
anniversary thereof. The full amount of the Revolving Credit
Facility will mature on February 2, 2011. The Letter of
Credit Facility will mature on February 2, 2013 and no
amortization will be required in respect thereof.
The New Senior Credit Facility is guaranteed by substantially
all of our existing and future direct and indirect subsidiaries,
with certain customary or agreed-upon exceptions for
unrestricted foreign subsidiaries, project subsidiaries and
certain other subsidiaries. In addition, the New Senior Credit
Facility is secured by liens on substantially all of our assets
and the assets of our subsidiaries, with certain customary or
agreed-upon exceptions for unrestricted foreign subsidiaries,
project subsidiaries and certain other subsidiaries. The capital
stock of substantially all of our subsidiaries, with certain
exceptions for unrestricted subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries
and project subsidiaries, has been pledged for the benefit of
the New Senior Credit Facility lenders.
The New Senior Credit Facility is also secured by a
first-priority perfected security interest in all of the
property and assets owned at-any time or acquired by us and our
subsidiaries, other than certain limited
115
exceptions. These exceptions include assets such as the assets
of certain unrestricted subsidiaries, equity interests in
certain of our project affiliates that have non-recourse debt
financing, and voting equity interests in excess of 66% of the
total outstanding voting equity interest of certain of our
foreign subsidiaries.
The New Senior Credit Facility contains customary covenants,
which, among other things require us to meet certain financial
tests, including a minimum interest coverage ratio and a maximum
leverage ratio, each at the corporate level and on a
consolidated basis, and further limits our ability to, among
other things:
|
|
|
|
|
incur indebtedness and liens and enter into sale and lease-back
transactions; |
|
|
|
make investments, loans and advances; |
|
|
|
engage in mergers, acquisitions, consolidations and asset sales; |
|
|
|
pay dividends and make other restricted payments; |
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates; |
|
|
|
make capital expenditures; |
|
|
|
make debt payments; and |
|
|
|
make certain changes to the terms of material indebtedness. |
On February 2, 2006, we completed the sale of
(i) $1.2 billion in aggregate principal amount of
7.25% senior notes due 2014, or 7.25% Senior Notes,
and (ii) $2.4 billion in aggregate principal amount of
7.375% senior notes due 2016, or 7.375% Senior Notes,
collectively the Senior Notes. The Senior Notes were issued
under an Indenture, dated February 2, 2006, between us and
Law Debenture Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, as
supplemented by a First Supplemental Indenture, dated
February 2, 2006, between us, the guarantors named therein
and the Trustee, relating to the 7.25% Senior Notes, and as
supplemented by a Second Supplemental Indenture, dated
February 2, 2006,(together with the Indenture and the First
Supplemental Indenture, the Indentures) between us, the
guarantors named therein and the Trustee, relating to the
7.375% Senior Notes. The Indentures provide, among other
things, that the Senior Notes will be senior unsecured
obligations of NRG.
Interest is payable on the Senior Notes on February 1 and
August 1 of each year beginning on August 1, 2006
until their maturity dates February 1, 2014 for
the 7.25% Senior Notes and February 1, 2016 for the
7.375% Senior Notes.
Prior to February 1, 2010 for the 7.25% Senior Notes
and prior to February 1, 2011 for the 7.375% Senior
Notes, we may redeem all or a portion of the series of Senior
Notes at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount plus a
make whole premium and accrued interest. On or after
February 1, 2010 for the 7.25% Senior Notes and on or
after February 1, 2011 for the 7.375% Senior Notes, we
may redeem all or a portion of the series of Senior Notes at
redemption prices set forth in the Indentures. In addition, at
any time prior to February 1, 2009, we may redeem up to 35%
of the aggregate principal amount of the series of Senior Notes
with the net proceeds of certain equity offerings at the
redemption price set forth in the Indentures.
The terms of the Indentures, among other things, limit our
ability and certain of our subsidiaries ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
make restricted payments; |
|
|
|
restrict dividends or other payments of subsidiaries; |
|
|
|
incur additional debt; |
|
|
|
engage in transactions with affiliates; |
|
|
|
create liens on assets; |
116
|
|
|
|
|
engage in sale and leaseback transactions; and |
|
|
|
consolidate, merge or transfer all or substantially all of its
assets and the assets of its subsidiaries. |
The Indentures provide for customary events of default which
include, among others, nonpayment of principal or interest;
breach of other agreements in the Indentures; defaults in
failure to pay certain other indebtedness; the rendering of
judgments to pay certain amounts of money against us and our
subsidiaries; the failure of certain guarantees to be
enforceable; and certain events of bankruptcy or insolvency.
Generally, if an event of default occurs, the Trustee or the
holders of at least 25% in principal amount of the then
outstanding series of Senior Notes may declare all of the Senior
Notes of such series to be due and payable immediately.
Before the Acquisition, Texas Gencos capital structure
permitted the grant of second priority liens on its assets as
security for their obligations under certain long-term power
sales agreements and related hedges. The Credit Agreement for
New Senior Credit Facility and the Indentures, which became
effective as of February 2, 2006, allow these arrangements
to remain in place. In addition, the new debt instruments also
permit us to grant second priority liens on our other assets in
the United States in order to secure obligations under power
sales agreements and related hedges, within certain limits. The
seven trading counterparties of Texas Genco who held second
priority liens on Texas Gencos assets as of
February 2, 2006, have been offered a second priority lien
on NRGs other assets under the new structure, as
additional collateral. Going forward, NRG anticipates that it
will use the second lien structure to reduce the amount of cash
collateral and letters of credit that it may otherwise be
required to post from time to time to support its obligations
under long term power sales and related hedges. Also see
Item 1 Business section
within the Power Marketing and Commercial Operations
discussion for quantified utilization as of December 31,
2005.
|
|
|
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock |
On February 2, 2006, we completed the issuance of
2 million shares of 5.75% mandatory convertible preferred
stock, or the 5.75% Preferred Stock, at an offering price of
$250 per share for total net proceeds after deducting
offering expenses and underwriting discounts of approximately
$485 million. Dividends on the 5.75% Preferred Stock are
$14.375 per share per year, and are due and payable on a
quarterly basis beginning on March 15, 2006. The 5.75%
Preferred Stock will automatically convert into common stock on
March 16, 2009, or the Conversion Date, at a rate that is
dependent upon the applicable market value of our common stock.
If the applicable market value of our common stock is $60.45 a
share or higher at the Conversion Date, then the 5.75% Preferred
Stock is convertible at a rate of 4.1356 shares of our
common stock for every share of 5.75% Preferred Stock
outstanding. If the applicable market value of our common stock
is less than or equal to $48.75 per share at the Conversion
Date, then the 5.75% Preferred Stock is convertible at a rate of
5.1282 shares of our common stock for every share of 5.75%
Preferred Stock outstanding. If the applicable market value of
our common stock is between $48.75 per share and
$60.45 per share at the Conversion Date, then the 5.75%
Preferred Stock is convertible into common stock at a rate that
is between 4.1356 per share and 5.1282 per share of
common stock.
On January 31, 2006, we completed the issuance of
20,855,057 shares of our common stock at an offering price
of $48.75 per share for total net proceeds after deducting
offering expenses and underwriting discounts of approximately
$985 million.
Audrain has an approximate total of $355 million in long
and short-term debt. We anticipate that the sale of Audrain will
close during the first half of 2006 upon which these balances
will be eliminated.
117
As part of our strategy to reinvest capital in our existing
assets for reason of repowering and expansion of current
generation sites, management is evaluating opportunities within
our core areas of operations.
During the third quarter, we received a Title V Air Permit
from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to add a
fourth unit of generating capacity at our Big Cajun II
Generating Station in New Roads, Louisiana. The total capital
expenditure expected from the construction of the 675 MW
expansion project is approximately $1 billion and would
take four years to build. Our Big Cajun II facility serves
the electricity needs of Louisianas 11 electric
cooperatives and we believe that there is additional unmet
demand for coal-fired generation in the area. We are currently
evaluating potential partners and customers for this project as
they are critical to the consideration of when to proceed with
this project.
Operations
in Australia
NRG is currently considering strategic alternatives with respect
to Australia either to reposition its assets more effectively
within the National Electricity Market or to monetize its
investment. We will seek to determine the best option to
optimize our investment during 2006.
Off-Balance Sheet Items
|
|
|
Obligations Under Certain Guarantee Contracts |
NRG and certain of its subsidiaries enter into guarantee
arrangements in the normal course of business to facilitate
commercial transactions with third parties. These arrangements
include financial and performance guarantees, stand-by letters
of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications.
See Note 29, Guarantees and Other Contingent Liabilities
for further details of the guarantee arrangements.
|
|
|
Retained or Contingent Interests |
NRG does not have any material retained or contingent interests
in assets transferred to an unconsolidated entity.
|
|
|
Derivative Instrument obligations |
On August 11, 2005 NRG issued the 3.625% Preferred Stock
which includes a conversion feature which is considered a
derivative per FAS 133. Although it is considered a
derivative, it is exempt from derivative accounting as it is
excluded from the scope pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of SFA
133. Despite this exclusion, per the guidance of EITF Topic D-98
the conversion feature must be
marked-to-market.
Currently, the conversion feature is valued at $0 as our stock
price is outside the conversion range. See Note 18 Capital
Structure for further discussion.
|
|
|
Obligations Arising Out of a Variable Interest in an
Unconsolidated Entity |
|
|
|
Variable interest in Equity investments |
As of December 31, 2005, we have not entered into any
financing structure that is designed to be off-balance sheet
that would create liquidity, financing or incremental market
risk or credit risk to us. However, we have numerous investments
with an ownership interest percentage of 50% or less in energy
and energy related entities that are accounted for under the
equity method of accounting. Our pro-rata share of non-recourse
debt held by unconsolidated affiliates was approximately
$178 million and $252 million as of December 31,
2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively. This indebtedness
may restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to issue
dividends or distributions to us. In the normal course of
business we may be asked to loan funds to unconsolidated
affiliates on both a long and short-term basis. Such
transactions are generally accounted for as accounts payable and
receivable to/from affiliates and notes payable/receivable
to/from affiliates and if appropriate, bear market-based
interest rates.
118
|
|
|
New Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility and Revolver
Facility |
Under the New Senior Credit Facility we entered into on
February 2, 2006, we have a $1.0 billion synthetic
Letter of Credit Facility that is unfunded directly by NRG, and
a $1.0 billion senior Revolving Credit Facility. The
synthetic Letter of Credit Facility is secured by a
$1.0 billion cash collateral deposit, held by Deutsche Bank
AG, New York Branch as the Issuing Bank. Under the synthetic
Letter of Credit Facility, we are allowed to issue letters of
credit to support our obligations under commodity hedging or
power purchase arrangements. We are permitted to issue up to
$300 million in unfunded letters of credit under our
Revolving Credit Facility for ongoing working capital
requirements and for general corporate purposes, including
acquisitions that are permitted under the New Senior Credit
Facility, or revolver letters of credit.
As of March 3, 2006, we had issued $775 million in
funded letters of credit under the Letter of Credit Facility. Of
this amount, a portion was issued to support obligations under
terminated NRG and Texas Genco letter of credit facilities. As
of March 3, 2006, we had issued $155 million in
revolver letters of credit, a portion of which supports
non-commercial letter of credit obligations under the terminated
NRG and Texas Genco letters of credit facilities.
|
|
|
Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments |
We have a variety of contractual obligations and other
commercial commitments that represent prospective cash
requirements in addition to our capital expenditure programs.
The following is a summarized table of contractual obligations.
See additional discussion in Item 15
Notes 17 and 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period as of December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
After | |
Contractual Cash Obligations |
|
Total | |
|
Short-term | |
|
2-3 Years | |
|
4-5 Years | |
|
5 Years | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Long-term debt (including estimated interest)
|
|
$ |
3,600 |
|
|
$ |
201 |
|
|
$ |
391 |
|
|
$ |
408 |
|
|
$ |
2,600 |
|
Capital lease obligations (including estimated interest)
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
187 |
|
Operating leases
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
Coal purchase and transportation obligations
|
|
|
416 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual cash obligations
|
|
$ |
4,572 |
|
|
$ |
495 |
|
|
$ |
672 |
|
|
$ |
539 |
|
|
$ |
2,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Guarantee Liabilities Expiration per Period as of | |
|
|
December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Total | |
|
|
|
|
Amounts | |
|
|
|
After | |
Guarantee Type |
|
Committed | |
|
Short-term | |
|
2-3 Years | |
|
4-5 Years | |
|
5 Years | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Funded standby letters of credit
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Unfunded standby letters of credit
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surety bonds
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset sales guarantee obligations
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110 |
|
Commodity sales guarantee obligations
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Other guarantees
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total guarantees
|
|
$ |
630 |
|
|
$ |
387 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a variety of contractual obligations and other
commercial commitments that represent prospective cash
requirements in addition to our capital expenditure programs, as
discussed in Item 15
119
Note 25, Commitments and Contingencies, to the
Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of
commitments and contingencies that also include contractual
obligations and commercial commitments that occurred during 2005.
Derivative Instruments
We may enter into long-term power sales contracts, long-term gas
purchase contracts and other energy related commodities
financial instruments to mitigate variability in earnings due to
fluctuations in spot market prices, to hedge fuel requirements
at generation facilities and protect fuel inventories. In
addition, in order to mitigate interest rate risk associated
with the issuance of our variable rate and fixed rate debt, we
enter into interest rate swap agreements.
The tables below disclose the trading activities that include
non-exchange traded contracts accounted for at fair value.
Specifically, these tables disaggregate realized and unrealized
changes in fair value; identify changes in fair value
attributable to changes in valuation techniques; disaggregate
estimated fair values at December 31, 2005 based on whether
fair values are determined by quoted market prices or more
subjective means; and indicate the maturities of contracts at
December 31, 2005.
|
|
|
Derivative Activity Gains/(Losses) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
Fair value of contracts at December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
Contracts realized or otherwise settled during the period
|
|
|
129 |
|
Changes in fair value
|
|
|
(490 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Fair value of contracts at December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
(404 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources of Fair Value Gains/(Losses) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value of Contracts as of December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Maturity | |
|
|
|
Maturity | |
|
|
|
|
Less Than | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
in Excess | |
|
Total Fair | |
|
|
1 Year | |
|
1-3 Years | |
|
4-5 Years | |
|
of 5 Years | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Prices actively quoted
|
|
$ |
(243 |
) |
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(255 |
) |
Prices based on models and other valuation methods
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(68 |
) |
Prices provided by other external sources
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(294 |
) |
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
(71 |
) |
|
$ |
(404 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We may use a variety of financial instruments to manage our
exposure to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates on
our international project cash flows, interest rates on our cost
of borrowing and energy and energy related commodities prices.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and
results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial
statements, which have been prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
The preparation of these financial statements and related
disclosures in compliance with generally accepted accounting
principles, or GAAP, requires the application of appropriate
technical accounting rules and guidance as well as the use of
estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of
assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related
disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. The
application of these policies necessarily involves judgments
regarding future events, including the likelihood of success of
particular projects, legal and regulatory challenges. These
judgments, in and of
120
themselves, could materially impact the financial statements and
disclosures based on varying assumptions, which may be
appropriate to use. In addition, the financial and operating
environment also may have a significant effect, not only on the
operation of the business, but on the results reported through
the application of accounting measures used in preparing the
financial statements and related disclosures, even if the nature
of the accounting policies have not changed.
On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, utilizing
historic experience, consultation with experts and other methods
we consider reasonable. In any case, actual results may differ
significantly from our estimates. Any effects on our business,
financial position or results of operations resulting from
revisions to these estimates are recorded in the period in which
the facts that give rise to the revision become known.
Our significant accounting policies are summarized in
Item 15 Note 2 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements. We identify our most critical accounting
policies as those that are the most pervasive and important to
the portrayal of our financial position and results of
operations, and that require the most difficult, subjective
and/or complex judgments by management regarding estimates about
matters that are inherently uncertain.
|
|
|
Accounting Policy |
|
Judgments/Uncertainties Affecting Application |
|
|
|
Revenue Recognition and Derivative Activity
|
|
Assumptions used in valuation models |
|
|
Market maturity and economic conditions |
|
|
Contract interpretation |
|
|
Market conditions in the energy industry, especially
the effects of price volatility on contractual commitments |
|
|
Documentation requirements |
|
|
Market conditions in foreign countries |
|
|
Regulatory and political environments and
requirements |
Income Taxes and Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax Assets
|
|
Ability of tax authority decisions to withstand
legal challenges or appeals |
|
|
Anticipated future decisions of tax authorities |
|
|
Application of tax statutes and regulations to
transactions. |
|
|
Ability to utilize tax benefits through carrybacks
to prior periods and carryforwards to future periods. |
Impairment of Long Lived Assets
|
|
Recoverability of investment through future
operations |
|
|
Regulatory and political environments and
requirements |
|
|
Estimated useful lives of assets |
|
|
Environmental obligations and operational limitations |
|
|
Estimates of future cash flows |
|
|
Estimates of fair value (fresh start) |
|
|
Judgment about triggering events |
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
|
|
Estimated useful lives for finite-lived intangible
assets |
|
|
Judgment about impairment triggering events |
|
|
Estimates of reporting units fair value |
|
|
Fair value estimate of certain power sales and fuel
contracts using forward pricing curves as of the closing date
over the life of each contract |
Contingencies
|
|
Estimated financial impact of event(s) |
|
|
Judgment about likelihood of event(s) occurring |
121
|
|
|
Revenue Recognition and Derivative Instruments |
We record revenues using two methods of accounting: accrual
accounting and
mark-to-market
accounting. We describe our use of accrual accounting, including
the application of hedge accounting, in more detail in
Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. In January
2001, we adopted SFAS 133, as amended by SFAS 137,
SFAS 138 and SFAS 149. SFAS 133, as amended,
requires us to
mark-to-market all
derivatives on the balance sheet. In some cases hedge accounting
may apply. The criteria used to determine if hedge accounting
treatment is appropriate are a) the designation of the
hedge to an underlying exposure, b) whether or not the
overall risk is being reduced and c) if there is
correlation between the value of the derivative instrument and
the underlying obligation. Formal documentation of the hedging
relationship, the nature of the underlying risk, the risk
management objective, and the means by which effectiveness will
be assessed is created at the inception of the hedge. Changes in
the fair value of non-hedge derivatives are immediately
recognized in earnings. Changes in the fair value of derivatives
accounted for as hedges are either recognized in earnings as an
offset to the changes in the fair value of the related hedged
assets, liabilities and firm commitments or for forecasted
transactions, deferred and recorded as a component of
accumulated other comprehensive income, or OCI, until the hedged
transactions occur and are recognized in earnings.
Derivative instruments valuation assets and liabilities consist
of a combination of energy and energy-related derivative
contracts. While some of these contracts represent commodities
or instruments for which prices are available from external
sources, other commodities and certain contracts are not
actively traded and are valued using modeling techniques to
determine expected future market prices, contract quantities, or
both. In determining the fair value of these
derivative/financial instruments we use estimates, various
assumptions, judgment of management and when considered
appropriate third party experts in determining the fair value of
these derivatives. However, future market prices and actual
quantities will vary from those used in recording derivative
instruments valuation assets and liabilities, and it is possible
that such variations could be material.
|
|
|
Income Taxes and Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax
Assets |
At December 31, 2005, we had a valuation allowance of
approximately $756 million primarily related to our
U.S. net deferred tax assets. In assessing the
recoverability of our deferred tax assets, we consider whether
it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the
deferred tax assets will be realized. The ultimate realization
of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the demonstration of a
history of earnings and generation of future income during the
periods in which those temporary differences will be deductible.
As of December 31, 2005, we have approximately
$93 million of U.S. federal and state net operating
loss (NOLs) carryforwards for financial reporting purposes. The
ultimate utilization of our NOLs will depend on several factors,
such as our ability to utilize tax benefits through carrybacks
to prior periods and carryforwards to future periods, the
application of tax statutes and regulations to transactions, the
ability of tax authority decisions to withstand legal challenges
or appeals, and anticipated future decisions of tax authorities.
We continue to be under audit for multiple years by taxing
authorities in other jurisdictions. Considerable judgment is
required to determine the tax treatment of a particular item
that involves interpretations of complex tax laws. A tax
liability has been recorded for certain tax filing positions
where our inability to sustain the tax return position is
probable and estimable. Such liabilities are based on
managements judgment which considers the best estimate of
the amount and probable outcome of the tax position, and it can
take several years between the time when a liability is recorded
and when the related filing position is resolved with the taxing
authority. Management periodically reviews these matters and
adjusts the liabilities recorded on the financial statements as
appropriate.
|
|
|
Evaluation of Assets for Impairment and Other Than
Temporary Decline in Value |
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the
Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, we evaluate
property, plant and equipment and intangible assets for
impairment whenever indicators of impairment exist. Examples of
such indicators or events are:
|
|
|
|
|
Significant decrease in the market price of a long-lived asset; |
122
|
|
|
|
|
Significant adverse change in the manner an asset is being used
or its physical condition; |
|
|
|
Adverse business climate; |
|
|
|
Accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount
originally expected for the construction or acquisition of an
asset, |
|
|
|
Current-period loss combined with a history of losses or the
projection of future losses; |
|
|
|
Change in our intent about an asset from an intent to hold to a
greater than 50% likelihood that an asset will be sold or
disposed of before the end of its previously estimated useful
life. |
Recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a
comparison of the carrying amount of the assets to the future
net cash flows expected to be generated by the asset, through
considering project specific assumptions for long-term power
pool prices, escalated future project operating costs and
expected plant operations. If such assets are considered to be
impaired, the impairment to be recognized is measured by the
amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds the
fair value of the assets by factoring in the probability
weighting of different courses of action available to us.
Generally, fair value will be determined using valuation
techniques such as the present value of expected future cash
flows. We use our best estimates in making these evaluations and
consider various factors, including forward price curves for
energy, fuel costs, and operating costs. However, actual future
market prices and project costs could vary from the assumptions
used in our estimates, and the impact of such variations could
be material.
For assets to be held and used, if we determine that the
undiscounted cash flows from the asset are less than the
carrying amount of the asset, we must estimate fair value to
determine the amount of any impairment loss. Assets held for
sale are reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair
value less the cost to sell. The estimation of fair value under
SFAS No. 144, whether in conjunction with an asset to
be held and used or with an asset held for sale, and the
evaluation of asset impairment are, by their nature, subjective.
We consider quoted market prices in active markets to the extent
they are available. In the absence of such information, we may
consider prices of similar assets, consult with brokers, or
employ other valuation techniques. We also will discount the
estimated future cash flows associated with the asset using a
single interest rate representative of the risk involved with
such an investment or employ an expected present value method
that probability-weights a range of possible outcomes. The use
of these methods involves the same inherent uncertainty of
future cash flows as previously discussed with respect to
undiscounted cash flows. Actual future market prices and project
costs could vary from those used in our estimates, and the
impact of such variations could be material.
We are also required to evaluate our equity-method and
cost-method investments to determine whether or not they are
impaired. Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18,
The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common
Stock, or APB18, provides the accounting requirements for
these investments. The standard for determining whether an
impairment must be recorded under APB 18 is whether the
value that is considered an other than a temporary
decline in value. The evaluation and measurement of impairments
under APB 18 involves the same uncertainties as described
for long-lived assets that we own directly and account for in
accordance with SFAS 144. Similarly, the estimates that we
make with respect to our equity and cost-method investments are
subjective, and the impact of variations in these estimates
could be material. Additionally, if the projects in which we
hold these investments recognize an impairment under the
provisions of SFAS 144, we would record our proportionate
share of that impairment loss and would evaluate our investment
for an other than temporary decline in value under APB 18.
For the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31,
2004, the periods December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003 and January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003 net income from continuing operations
was reduced by $6 million, $45 million,
$0 million and $229 million, respectively, due to
investment impairments.
123
|
|
|
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets |
As part of the Acquisition we expect to record intangible assets
that may include goodwill resulting from the Acquisition and
other intangible assets. We will apply SFAS 141, and
SFAS 142 Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, to account
for these intangibles. Under these standards we will amortize
all finite-lived intangible assets over their respective
estimated weighted-average useful life, whereas goodwill and
other intangibles that have indefinite lives are not amortized.
However, goodwill and all intangible assets will be tested for
impairment whenever an event occurs that indicates that an
impairment may have occurred, or at a minimum on an annual
basis. If necessary, our goodwill and/or intangible asset will
be impaired at that time.
In connection with the Acquisition, we expect to recognize the
fair value of certain power sales and fuel contracts acquired.
We estimate that the fair value of these contracts using forward
pricing curves as of the closing date over the life of each
contract. These contracts had negative fair values at the
closing date of the acquisition and will be reflected as assumed
contracts in the combined balance sheet. Assumed contracts are
amortized to revenues and fuel expense as applicable based on
the estimated realization of the preliminary fair value
established on the closing date over the contractual lives.
We record a loss contingency when management determines it is
probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. Gain contingencies are not
recorded until management determines it is certain that the
future event will become or does become a reality. Such
determinations are subject to interpretations of current facts
and circumstances, forecasts of future events, and estimates of
the financial impacts of such events. We describe in detail our
contingencies in Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
|
|
Recent Accounting Developments |
See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements as
found in Item 15 for a discussion of recent accounting
developments.
Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosures About Market Risk
We are exposed to several market risks in our normal business
activities. Market risk is the potential loss that may result
from market changes associated with our merchant
power generation or with an existing or forecasted financial or
commodity transaction. The types of market risks we are exposed
to are commodity price risk, interest rate risk and currency
exchange risk. In order to manage these risks we utilize various
fixed-price forward purchase and sales contracts, futures and
option contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and
swaps and options traded in the
over-the-counter
financial markets to:
|
|
|
|
|
Manage and hedge our fixed-price purchase and sales commitments; |
|
|
|
Manage and hedge our exposure to variable rate debt obligations, |
|
|
|
Reduce our exposure to the volatility of cash market
prices; and |
|
|
|
Hedge our fuel requirements for our generating facilities. |
Commodity Price Risk
Commodity price risks result from exposures to changes in spot
prices, forward prices, volatilities in commodities, and
correlations between various commodities, such as natural gas,
electricity, coal and oil. A number of factors influence the
level and volatility of prices for energy commodities and
related derivative products. These factors include:
|
|
|
|
|
Seasonal daily and hourly changes in demand |
|
|
|
Extreme peak demands due to weather conditions |
124
|
|
|
|
|
Available supply resources |
|
|
|
Transportation availability and reliability within and between
regions |
|
|
|
Changes in the nature and extent of federal and state regulations |
As part of our overall portfolio, we manage the commodity price
risk of our generation assets by entering into various
derivative or non-derivative instruments to hedge the
variability in future cash flows from forecasted sales of
electricity and purchases of fuel. These instruments include
forward purchase and sale contracts, futures and option
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and swaps
and options traded in the
over-the-counter
financial markets. The portion of forecasted transactions hedged
may vary based upon managements assessment of market,
weather, operational, and other factors.
While some of the contracts we use to manage risk represent
commodities or instruments for which prices are available from
external sources, other commodities and certain contracts are
not actively traded and are valued using other pricing sources
and modeling techniques to determine expected future market
prices, contract quantities, or both. We use our best estimates
to determine the fair value of commodity and derivative
contracts we hold and sell. These estimates consider various
factors including closing exchange and
over-the-counter price
quotations, time value, volatility factors, and credit exposure.
However, it is likely that future market prices could vary from
those used in recording
mark-to-market
derivative instrument valuations, and such variations could be
material.
We measure the sensitivity of our portfolio to potential changes
in market prices using value at risk. Value at risk is a
statistical model that attempts to predict risk of loss based on
market price volatility. We calculate value at risk using a
variance/covariance technique that models positions using a
linear approximation of their value. Our value at risk
calculation includes
mark-to-market and non
mark-to-market energy
assets and liabilities.
We utilize a diversified value at risk model to calculate the
estimate of potential loss in the fair value of our energy
assets and liabilities including generation assets, load
obligations and bilateral physical and financial transactions.
The key assumptions for our diversified model include (1) a
lognormal distribution of price returns, (2) one-day
holding period, (3) a 95% confidence interval, (4) a
rolling 24-month
forward looking period and (5) market implied price
volatilities and historical price correlations.
This model encompasses the following generating regions:
ENTERGY, NEPOOL, NYPP, PJM, WSCC and MAIN. The estimated maximum
potential loss in fair value of our commodity portfolio,
including generation assets, load obligations and bilateral
physical and financial transaction, calculated using the
diversified VAR model is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
Year end December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
36.9 |
|
|
Average
|
|
|
27.6 |
|
|
High
|
|
|
45.9 |
|
|
Low
|
|
|
16.0 |
|
Year end December 31, 2004
|
|
|
26.7 |
|
|
Average
|
|
|
40.3 |
|
|
High
|
|
|
53.4 |
|
|
Low
|
|
|
26.7 |
|
In order to provide additional information for comparative
purposes to our peers we also utilize value at risk to model the
estimate of potential loss of financial derivative instruments
included in derivative instruments valuation assets and
liabilities. This estimation includes those energy contracts
accounted for as a hedge under SFAS 133, as amended. The
estimated maximum potential loss in fair value of the financial
derivative instruments calculated using the diversified VAR
model as of December 31, 2005 is approximately
$37 million.
125
Due to the inherent limitations of statistical measures such as
value at risk, the relative immaturity of the competitive
markets for electricity and related derivatives, and the
seasonality of changes in market prices, the value at risk
calculation may not capture the full extent of commodity price
exposure. Additionally, actual changes in the value of options
may differ from the value at risk calculated using a linear
approximation inherent in our calculation method. As a result,
actual changes in the fair value of mark-to market energy assets
and liabilities could differ from the calculated value at risk,
and such changes could have a material impact on our financial
results.
We are exposed to fluctuations in interest rates through our
issuance of fixed rate and variable rate debt. Exposures to
interest rate fluctuations may be mitigated by entering into
derivative instruments known as interest rate swaps, caps,
collars and put or call options. These contracts reduce exposure
to interest rate volatility and result in primarily fixed rate
debt obligations when taking into account the combination of the
variable rate debt and the interest rate derivative instrument.
Our risk management policy allows us to reduce interest rate
exposure from variable rate debt obligations.
In January 2006, we entered into a series of new interest rate
swaps. These interest rate swaps became effective on
February 15, 2006 and are intended to hedge the risk
associated with floating interest rates. For each of the
interest rate swaps, we pay our counterparty the equivalent of a
fixed interest payment on a predetermined notional value, and we
receive quarterly the equivalent of a floating interest payment
based on 3-month LIBOR
calculated on the same notional value. All payments by us and
our counterparties are made quarterly, and the LIBOR is
determined in advance of each interest period. While the
notional value of each of the swaps does not vary over time, the
swaps are designed to mature sequentially. The total notional
amount of these swaps as of February 25, 2006 was
$2.15 billion. The notional amounts and maturities of each
tranche of these swaps are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period of Swap |
|
Notional value | |
|
Maturity | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
1-year
|
|
$ |
120 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2007 |
|
2-year
|
|
$ |
140 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
3-year
|
|
$ |
150 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
4-year
|
|
$ |
190 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
5-year
|
|
$ |
1.55 billion |
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
As of December 31, 2005, we and our consolidating
subsidiaries had various interest rate swap agreements with
notional amounts totaling approximately $1.2 billion. If
the swaps had been discontinued on December 31, 2005, we
would have owed the counter-parties approximately
$33.1 million. Based on the investment grade rating of the
counterparties, we believe that our exposure to credit risk due
to nonperformance by the counterparties to our hedging contracts
is insignificant.
We have both long and short-term debt instruments that subject
us to the risk of loss associated with movements in market
interest rates. As of December 31, 2005, a 100 basis
point change in interest rates would result in a
$8.3 million change in interest expense on a rolling
12 month basis. When our new senior unsecured notes and new
credit agreement are included, a 100 basis point change in
interest rates would result in a $34 million change in
interest expense on a rolling 12 month basis.
At December 31, 2005, the fair value of our fixed-rate
long-term debt was $2.8 billion, compared with the carrying
amount of $2.7 billion. We estimate that a 1% decrease in
market interest rates would have increased the fair value of our
fixed-rate long-term debt by approximately $33 million.
When our new senior unsecured notes and new credit agreement are
included, we estimate that a 1% decrease in market rates would
increase the fair value of our fixed rate long term debt by
approximately $456 million.
126
Our collateral posted in support of our management of our
electric generation facilities fluctuates based on amount of the
portfolio hedged using collateralized contracts and market price
movements. Based on a sensitivity analysis a $1 per MWh
increase or decrease in electricity prices would cause a change
in margin collateral outstanding of approximately
$13 million. This sensitivity uses simplified assumptions
and may not reflect actual market movements.
Credit risk relates to the risk of loss resulting from
non-performance or non-payment by counterparties pursuant to the
terms of their contractual obligations. We monitor and manage
the credit risk of NRG and its subsidiaries through credit
policies which include an (i) established credit approval
process, (ii) daily monitoring of counter-party credit
limits, (iii) the use of credit mitigation measures such as
margin, collateral, credit derivatives or prepayment
arrangements, (iv) the use of payment netting agreements
and (v) the use of master netting agreements that allow for
the netting of positive and negative exposures of various
contracts associated with a single counterparty. Risks
surrounding counterparty performance and credit could ultimately
impact the amount and timing of expected cash flows. We have
credit protection within various agreements to call on
additional collateral support if necessary. As of
December 31, 2005, we held collateral support of
approximately $205 million from counterparties.
A portion of our credit risk is related to transactions that are
recorded in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. These transactions
primarily consist of open positions from our marketing and risk
management operation that are accounted for using
mark-to-market
accounting, as well as amounts owed by counterparties for
transactions that settled but have not yet been paid. The
following table highlights the credit quality and exposures
related to these activities as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exposure | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before | |
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
Collateral | |
|
Collateral | |
|
Exposure | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Investment grade
|
|
$ |
518 |
|
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
422 |
|
Non-investment grade
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Not rated
|
|
|
164 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
706 |
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
580 |
|
Investment grade
|
|
|
73 |
% |
|
|
76 |
% |
|
|
73 |
% |
Non-investment grade
|
|
|
3 |
% |
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
3 |
% |
Not rated
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
20 |
% |
|
|
24 |
% |
Additionally, we have concentrations of suppliers and customers
among electric utilities, energy marketing and trading companies
and regional transmission operators. These concentrations of
counterparties may impact NRGs overall exposure to credit
risk, either positively or negatively, in that counterparties
may be similarly affected by changes in economic, regulatory and
other conditions.
NRGs exposure to significant counterparties greater than
10% of the net exposure of approximately $580 million was
approximately $386 million as of December 31, 2005. We
do not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations as a result of nonperformance
by any of its counterparties.
We expect to continue to be subject to currency risks associated
with foreign denominated distributions from our international
investments. In the normal course of business, we may receive
distributions denominated in the Euro, Australian Dollar and the
Brazilian Real. We have historically engaged in a strategy of
hedging foreign denominated cash flows through a program of
matching currency inflows and outflows, and to
127
the extent required, fixing the U.S. Dollar equivalent of
net foreign denominated distributions with currency forward and
swap agreements with highly credit worthy financial
institutions. We would expect to enter into similar transactions
in the future if management believes it to be appropriate.
As of December 31, 2005, neither we, nor any of our
consolidating subsidiaries, had any material outstanding foreign
currency exchange contracts.
Item 8 Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data
The financial statements and schedules are listed in
Part IV, Item 15 of this
Form 10-K.
Item 9 Changes in and Disagreements with
Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures
None.
Item 9A Controls and Procedures
Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls
and Procedures
Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our principal executive officer, principal
financial officer and principal accounting officer, we conducted
an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such
term is defined in
Rules 13a-15(e) or
15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the Exchange Act). Based on this evaluation, our
principal executive officer, principal financial officer and
principal accounting officer concluded that our disclosure
controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report on
Form 10-K.
There have not been any changes in our internal control over
financial reporting (as such term is defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and 15d-15(f) under the
Exchange Act) during the fourth quarter that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affected, or
are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control
over financial reporting.
Item 9B Other Information
Effective March 3, 2006, NRG entered into a restated
employment agreement with David Crane, pursuant to which
Mr. Crane will continue to serve as the Companys
President and Chief Executive Officer. The initial term of the
restated employment agreement will end on December 31,
2008, but the agreement provides for automatic extensions for
additional successive one-year terms on the same terms and
conditions, unless either party provides the other with notice
to the contrary at least 90 days prior to the end of the
initial term or any subsequent one-year term. The restated
employment agreement provides for an initial annual base salary
of $1,000,000. For each one-year period thereafter,
Mr. Cranes base salary will be reviewed and may be
increased by the Board. Beginning with the 2006 fiscal year,
Mr. Crane is entitled to an annual bonus with a target
amount of up to 100 percent of his base salary, based upon
the achievement of criteria determined at the beginning of the
fiscal year by the Board, with input from Mr. Crane, for
that fiscal year. In addition, beginning with the 2006 fiscal
year, Mr. Crane is entitled to a maximum annual bonus equal
to up to an additional 100 percent of his base salary,
based upon the achievement of criteria determined at the
beginning of the fiscal year by the Board, with input from
Mr. Crane, for that fiscal year. Mr. Crane is also
eligible to participate in the Long Term Incentive Plan in
accordance with its terms and is entitled to receive other
customary fringe benefits generally available to the
Companys executive employees. Mr. Crane is also
entitled to certain severance benefits. Further details of
Mr. Cranes employment package are set forth in the
restated employment agreement attached as Exhibit 10.33 to
this Form 10-K and
incorporated herein by reference.
The Compensation Committees and the Board of
Directors approval of the Annual Incentive Plan Payout, or
the AIP Payout, for each executive officer of NRG who is
expected to be a named executive officer in NRGs Proxy
Statement for the annual meeting of stockholders to be held on
April 28, 2006 became final on March 7, 2006. The
named executive officers include: David Crane, President and
Chief Executive Officer;
128
Robert C. Flexon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer; Kevin Howell, Executive Vice President, Commercial
Operations; John P. Brewster, Executive Vice President,
International Operations and President, South Central Region;
and Christine A. Jacobs, Vice President, Plant Operations.
Effective January 3, 2006, the Board of Directors approved
the 2006 Base Salary for Mr. Crane (as previously disclosed
in a Form 8-K,
filed January 5, 2006) and the Compensation Committee
approved the 2006 Base Salary for the other named executive
officers. The AIP Payout and the base salary for each named
executive officer is set forth in the 2005 AIP Payout and 2006
Base Salary Table attached as Exhibit 10.34 to this
Form 10-K and
incorporated herein by reference.
On March 1, 2006, the Compensation Committee, duly
authorized by the Board of Directors, approved 2006 performance
targets for Mr. Crane, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. Flexon, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer and the other named executive officers.
Performance targets include EBITDA and free cash flow financial
goals, as well as non-financial goals in the areas of safety,
environmental, strategic development, staff development and
individual performance objectives. As noted above, the Chief
Executive Officer will have a target opportunity of
100 percent of base salary with an additional maximum
opportunity of 100 percent of base salary. The Chief
Financial Officer will have a target opportunity of
75 percent of base salary with an additional maximum
opportunity of 75 percent of base salary. The remaining
named executive officers will have a target opportunity ranging
from 50 to 75 percent of base salary with an additional
maximum opportunity ranging from 25 to 37.5 percent of base
salary.
PART III
Item 10 Directors and Executive Officers
of the Registrant
NRG has adopted a code of ethics entitled NRG Code of
Conduct that applies to directors, officers and employees,
including the chief executive officer and senior financial
officers of NRG Energy. It may be accessed through NRGs
website at http://www.nrgenergy.com/investor/corpgov.htm. NRG
also elects to disclose the information required by
Form 8-K,
Item 5.05, Amendments to the registrants code
of ethics, or waiver of a provision of the code of ethics,
through this website and such information will remain available
on this website for at least a
12-month period. A copy
of the NRG Code of Conduct is available in print to
any shareholder who requests it.
Other information required by this Item will be incorporated by
reference to the similarly named section of our definitive Proxy
Statement for our 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held
April 28, 2006.
Item 11 Executive Compensation
Other information required by this Item will be incorporated by
reference to the similarly named section of our definitive Proxy
Statement for our 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held
April 28, 2006.
|
|
Item 12 |
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management and Related Stockholder Matters |
Other information required by this Item will be incorporated by
reference to the similarly named section of our definitive Proxy
Statement for our 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held
April 28, 2006.
Item 13 Certain Relationships and Related
Transactions
Other information required by this Item will be incorporated by
reference to the similarly named section of our definitive Proxy
Statement for our 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held
April 28, 2006.
Item 14 Principal Accountant Fees and
Services
Other information required by this Item will be incorporated by
reference to the similarly named section of our definitive Proxy
Statement for our 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held
April 28, 2006.
129
PART IV
Item 15 Exhibits and Financial Statement
Schedules
(a)(1) Financial Statements
The following consolidated financial statements of NRG Energy
and related notes thereto, together with the reports thereon of
KPMG LLP are included herein:
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of Operations Year ended
December 31, 2005 and the Year ended December 31, 2004
(Reorganized NRG) |
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet December 31, 2005
and December 31, 2004 (Reorganized NRG) |
|
|
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows Year ended
December 31, 2005 and the Year ended December 31, 2004
(Reorganized NRG) |
|
|
Consolidated Statement of Stockholders Equity/(Deficit)
and Comprehensive Income/(Loss) Year ended
December 31, 2005 and the Year ended December 31, 2004
(Reorganized NRG) |
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements |
The following consolidated financial statements of NRG Energy
and related notes thereto, together with the reports thereon of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are included herein:
|
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations The period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 (Reorganized
NRG) and the period January 1, 2003 to December 5,
2003 (Predecessor Company) |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows The period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 (Reorganized
NRG) and the period January 1, 2003 to December 5,
2003 (Predecessor Company) |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity/(Deficit)
and Comprehensive Income/(Loss) The period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 (Reorganized
NRG) and the period January 1, 2003 to December 5,
2003 (Predecessor Company) |
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements |
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedule
The following Consolidated Financial Statement Schedule of NRG
Energy is filed as part of Item 15(d) of this report and
should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on
Financial Statement Schedule.
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
All other schedules for which provision is made in the
applicable accounting regulation of the Securities and Exchange
Commission are not required under the related instructions or
are inapplicable, and therefore, have been omitted.
(a)(3) Exhibits: See Exhibit Index submitted as a
separate section of this report.
(b) Exhibits
(c) Financial Statement Schedule
130
MANAGEMENTS REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL
REPORTING
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(f).
Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our principal executive officer, principal
financial officer and principal accounting officer, we conducted
an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting based on the framework in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on
our evaluation under the framework in Internal
Control Integrated Framework, our management
concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was
effective as of December 31, 2005.
Our managements assessment of the effectiveness of our
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2005 has been audited by KPMG LLP, our
independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in its
report which is included in this
Form 10-K.
131
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM
The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NRG Energy, Inc.:
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting, that NRG Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2005, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO). NRG Energy, Inc.s
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating
managements assessment, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that NRG Energy,
Inc. and subsidiaries maintained effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO). Also, in our opinion, NRG
Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries maintained, in all material
respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2005, based on criteria established
in Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by
the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO).
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheet of NRG Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders equity/(deficit)
and comprehensive income/(loss), and cash flows for the year
then ended December 31, 2005, and our report dated
March 7, 2006 expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 7, 2006
132
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors and Stockholders
NRG Energy, Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
NRG Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005
and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders equity/(deficit) and comprehensive
income/(loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the two
year period ended December 31, 2005. In connection with our
audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have
audited the financial statement schedule Schedule II
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts. These consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule based on
our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of NRG Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the two
year period ended December 31, 2005, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our
opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material
respects, the information set forth therein.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of NRG Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2005, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework, issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO), and our report dated March 7, 2006 expressed
an unqualified opinion on managements assessment of, and
the effective operation of, internal control over financial
reporting.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 7, 2006
133
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of NRG Energy, Inc.:
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations, cash flows and of stockholders
equity/(deficit) and comprehensive income/(loss) of NRG Energy,
Inc. and its subsidiaries (Reorganized NRG) present fairly, in
all material respects, the results of their operations and their
cash flows for the period from December 6, 2003 to
December 31, 2003 in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We
conducted our audit of these statements in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). These standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements,
assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As discussed in Notes 1 and 2 to the consolidated financial
statements, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York confirmed the NRG Energy, Inc. Plan of
Reorganization on November 24, 2003. Confirmation of the
plan resulted in the discharge of all claims against the Company
that arose before May 14, 2003 and substantially alters
rights and interests of equity security holders as provided for
in the plan. The NRG Energy, Inc. Plan of Reorganization was
substantially consummated on December 5, 2003, and NRG
Energy, Inc. emerged from bankruptcy. In connection with its
emergence from bankruptcy, NRG Energy, Inc. adopted fresh start
accounting as of December 5, 2003.
|
|
|
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
|
|
|
|
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 10, 2004, except as to Notes 6, 21, and 33,
which are as of December 6, 2004
134
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholder of NRG Energy, Inc.:
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated statement of
operations, cash flows and of stockholders
equity/(deficit) and comprehensive income/(loss) of NRG Energy,
Inc. and its subsidiaries (Predecessor Company) present fairly,
in all material respects, the results of their operations and
their cash flows for the period from January 1, 2003 to
December 5, 2003 in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We
conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). These standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements,
assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits
provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As discussed in Notes 1 and 2 to the consolidated financial
statements, the Company filed a petition on May 14, 2003
with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York for reorganization under the provisions of
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. NRG Energy, Inc.s
Plan of Reorganization was substantially consummated on
December 5, 2003 and Reorganized NRG emerged from
bankruptcy. In connection with its emergence from bankruptcy,
the Company adopted fresh start accounting.
|
|
|
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
|
|
|
|
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 10, 2004, except as to Notes 6, 21, and 33,
which are as of December 6, 2004
135
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
December 6, | |
|
|
January 1, | |
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
Through | |
|
|
Through | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) | |
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from majority-owned operations
|
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
|
$ |
2,348 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,798 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of majority-owned operations
|
|
|
2,067 |
|
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
1,354 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
General, administrative and development
|
|
|
197 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
Other charges (credits)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
198 |
|
|
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
Fresh start reporting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,220 |
) |
|
|
Legal settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,470 |
|
|
|
1,955 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
(1,587 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
3,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income/(Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
Refinancing expenses
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
(266 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
3,120 |
|
Income Tax Expense/(Benefit)
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income From Continuing Operations
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
3,082 |
|
Income/(Loss) on Discontinued Operations, net of Income
Taxes
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
2,766 |
|
|
|
Preference stock dividends
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Available for Common Stockholders
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
Basic
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income From Continuing Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Basic
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
|
$ |
1.61 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income From Discontinued Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Basic
|
|
|
0.09 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Share
Basic
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.86 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
Diluted
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income From Continuing Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.66 |
|
|
$ |
1.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income From Discontinued Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Diluted
|
|
|
0.09 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Shares
Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.75 |
|
|
$ |
1.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
136
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except shares | |
|
|
and par value) | |
ASSETS |
Current Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
506 |
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
Accounts receivable-trade, less allowance for
doubtful accounts of $2 and $1
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
Accounts receivable-affiliate
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of notes receivable and capital lease
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
Property taxes receivable
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
404 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
Collateral on deposit in support of energy risk management
activities
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
Current assets held for sale
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
2,197 |
|
|
|
2,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, Plant and Equipment, net
|
|
|
3,039 |
|
|
|
3,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates
|
|
|
603 |
|
|
|
735 |
|
|
Notes receivable, less current portion affiliates,
net
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
Notes receivable and capital lease, less current portion, net
|
|
|
355 |
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization of $79 and $55
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
Funded letter of credit
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
Deferred income tax
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
Non-current assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other assets
|
|
|
2,195 |
|
|
|
2,587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
7,431 |
|
|
$ |
7,864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
137
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except shares | |
|
|
and par value) | |
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital leases
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
511 |
|
|
Accounts payable trade
|
|
|
268 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
|
Accounts payable affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
692 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
Other bankruptcy settlement
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
Current liabilities discontinued operations
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
1,356 |
|
|
|
1,087 |
|
Other Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and capital leases
|
|
|
2,581 |
|
|
|
2,973 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
Postretirement and other benefit obligations
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
Out of market contracts
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
Other long-term obligations
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
Non-current liabilities discontinued operations
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current liabilities
|
|
|
3,597 |
|
|
|
4,084 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
4,953 |
|
|
|
5,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
3.625% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock;
$.01 par value; 250,000 shares issued and outstanding
(at liquidation value of $250, net of issuance costs)
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and Contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock; $.01 par
value; 420,000 shares issued and outstanding at
December 31, 2005 and 2004 (at liquidation value of $420,
net of issuance costs)
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
|
406 |
|
Common stock; $.01 par value; 100,048,676 and
100,041,935 shares issued and 80,701,888 and 87,041,935
outstanding at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
2,431 |
|
|
|
2,417 |
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
197 |
|
Less treasury stock, at cost; 19,346,788 and
13,000,000 shares as of December 31, 2005 and 2004,
respectively
|
|
|
(663 |
) |
|
|
(405 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive income/(loss)
|
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
2,231 |
|
|
|
2,692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
$ |
7,431 |
|
|
$ |
7,864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
138
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS
EQUITY/(DEFICIT)
AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME/(LOSS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
Total | |
|
|
Serial Preferred | |
|
Common | |
|
Additional | |
|
Retained | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Stockholders | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
Paid-In | |
|
Earnings/ | |
|
Treasury | |
|
Comprehensive | |
|
Equity/ | |
|
|
Stock | |
|
Shares | |
|
Stock | |
|
Shares | |
|
Capital | |
|
(Deficit) | |
|
Stock | |
|
Income/(Loss) | |
|
(Deficit) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Balances at December 31, 2002 (Predecessor Company)
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,228 |
|
|
$ |
(2,829 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(95 |
) |
|
$ |
(696 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,766 |
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
Deferred unrealized loss on derivatives, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income for the period from January 1, 2003
through December 5, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,862 |
|
|
Effects of reorganization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,228 |
) |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(2,166 |
) |
|
Issuance of common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
2,403 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 5, 2003 (Predecessor Company)
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
$ |
2,403 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
Deferred unrealized loss on derivatives, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income for the period from December 6,
2003 through December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2003 (Reorganized NRG)
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
$ |
2,403 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
2,437 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
Deferred unrealized gain on derivatives, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income for 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
Equity based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
Issuance of preferred stock
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
Purchase of treasury stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2004 (Reorganized NRG)
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
$ |
2,417 |
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
|
$ |
(405 |
) |
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
2,692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments and other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
Deferred unrealized loss on derivatives, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
Minimum pension liability, net of $3 tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss for 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
Equity based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
Preferred stock dividends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
Purchase of treasury stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(258 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(258 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2005 (Reorganized NRG)
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
$ |
2,431 |
|
|
$ |
261 |
|
|
$ |
(663 |
) |
|
$ |
(205 |
) |
|
$ |
2,231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
139
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Predecessor Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6, 2003 | |
|
|
January 1, 2003 | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
Through | |
|
|
Through | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
December 5, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions in excess of (less than) equity earnings of
unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
Reserve for note and interest receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of financing costs and debt discount/(premium)
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
Write-off of deferred financing costs due to refinancings
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
Unrealized (gains)/losses on derivatives
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
Amortization of intangible assets
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of unearned equity compensations
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
Fresh start reporting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,895 |
) |
|
|
Loss on sale and disposal of assets
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(186 |
) |
|
|
Gain on TermoRio settlement
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral deposit payments in support of energy risk management
activities
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) changes in certain working capital
items, net of effects from acquisitions and dispositions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
Xcel Energy settlement receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
|
649 |
|
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
Creditor pool obligation payments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(540 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
(441 |
) |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
Other assets and liabilities
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
(589 |
) |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of investments
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of turbines and other property, plant and
equipment
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
Decrease/(increase) in restricted cash and trust funds
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
|
(266 |
) |
|
Decrease/(increase) in notes receivable
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Deferred acquisition costs
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
Return of capital/(Investments) in projects
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Investing Activities
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
|
(186 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of dividends to preferred shareholders
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of minority interest obligations
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accelerated share repurchase payment, net
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of treasury stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of 4% Preferred Stock, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of 3.625% Preferred Stock, net
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt, net
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
1,333 |
|
|
|
2,450 |
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
Funded letter of credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal payments on short and long-term debt
|
|
|
(1,005 |
) |
|
|
(1,492 |
) |
|
|
(1,732 |
) |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Financing Activities
|
|
|
(830 |
) |
|
|
(284 |
) |
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
Change in Cash from Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(598 |
) |
|
|
554 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
|
|
|
1,104 |
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
|
|
$ |
506 |
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
|
$ |
550 |
|
|
|
$ |
396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to consolidated financial statements.
140
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
We are a leading wholesale power generation company with a
significant presence in many of the major competitive power
markets in the United States. We are primarily engaged in the
ownership and operation of power generation facilities,
purchasing fuel and transportation services to support our power
plant operations, and the marketing and trading of energy,
capacity and related products in the competitive markets in
which we operate.
Our facilities consist primarily of baseload, intermediate and
peaking power generation facilities, and also include thermal
energy production and energy resource recovery plants. The sale
of capacity and power from baseload generation facilities
accounts for the majority of our revenues and provides a stable
source of cash flow. In addition, our diverse generation
portfolio provides us with opportunities to capture additional
revenues by selling power into our core regions during periods
of peak demand, offering capacity or similar products to retail
electric providers and others, and providing ancillary services
to support system reliability.
On February 2, 2006, NRG completed the acquisition of Texas
Genco, or the Acquisition. The purchase price of approximately
$6.1 billion consisted of approximately $4.4 billion
in cash and the issuance of approximately 35.4 million
shares of NRGs common stock valued at $1.7 billion.
This amount is subject to adjustment due to acquisition costs.
The value of our common stock issued to the former direct and
indirect owners of Texas Genco, or the Sellers, was based on our
average stock price immediately before and after the closing
date of February 2, 2006. The Acquisition includes the
assumption of approximately $2.7 billion of Texas Genco
debt. Texas Genco is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG, and
will be managed and accounted for as a new business segment to
be referred to as NRG Texas.
We were formed in 1992 as the non-utility subsidiary of Northern
States Power Company, or NSP, which was itself merged into New
Century Energies, Inc. to form Xcel Energy, Inc., or Xcel
Energy, in 2000. In 2002, a number of factors including the
overall downturn in the power generation industry, triggered a
series of credit rating downgrades which, in turn, precipitated
a severe liquidity crisis at the Company. From May 14 to
December 23, 2003, we and a number of our subsidiaries
undertook a comprehensive reorganization and restructuring under
chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
As part of our reorganization, Xcel Energy relinquished its
ownership interest in us, and we became an independent public
company. We no longer have any material affiliation or
relationship with Xcel Energy. As part of our restructuring, on
December 23, 2003, we used the proceeds of a new
$1.25 billion offering of 8% second priority senior secured
notes due 2013, and borrowings under a new $1.45 billion
secured credit facility, to retire approximately
$1.7 billion of project-level debt.
We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29,
1992. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol NRG. Our headquarters and principal
executive offices are located at 211 Carnegie Center, Princeton,
New Jersey 08540. Our telephone number is (609) 524-4500.
The address of our website is www.nrgenergy.com. Our recent
annual reports, quarterly reports, current reports and other
periodic filings are available free of charge through our
website.
|
|
Note 2 |
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies |
Nature of Operations
We are a wholesale power generation company, primarily engaged
in the ownership and operation of power generation facilities
and the sale of energy, capacity and related products in the
United States and internationally. We have a diverse portfolio
of electric generation facilities in terms of geography, fuel
type, and dispatch levels, which help mitigate risk. We seek to
maximize operating income through the efficient
141
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
procurement and management of fuel supplies and maintenance
services, and the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary
services into attractive spot, intermediate and long-term
markets.
|
|
|
Principles of Consolidation and Basis of
Presentation |
Between May 14, 2003 and December 5, 2003, we operated
as a
debtor-in-possession
under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. Our financial
statements for reporting periods within that timeframe were
prepared in accordance with the provisions of
SOP 90-7.
For financial reporting purposes, close of business on
December 5, 2003, represents the date of our emergence from
bankruptcy. As used herein, the following terms refer to the
Company and its operations:
|
|
|
Predecessor Company
|
|
The Company, pre-emergence from bankruptcy |
|
|
The Companys operations prior to December 6, 2003 |
Reorganized NRG
|
|
The Company, post-emergence from bankruptcy |
|
|
The Companys operations, December 6,
2003-December 31, 2005 |
In January 2003, the FASB issued FIN 46 which requires an
enterprises consolidated financial statements to include
subsidiaries in which the enterprise has a controlling interest.
In December 2003, the FASB published a revision to
Interpretation 46, or FIN 46R, to clarify some of the
provisions of FIN 46 and to exempt certain entities from
its requirements. As required by
SOP 90-7, we
adopted FIN 46R as of the adoption of Fresh Start and
consequently we have consolidated operations of hydropower
facilities on the East Coast, Northbrook New York and Northbrook
Energy. These operations have been sold during 2005 and
classified as discontinued operations. Also see Note 6 for
further discussion.
The consolidated financial statements include our accounts and
operations and those of our subsidiaries in which we have a
controlling interest. All significant intercompany transactions
and balances have been eliminated in consolidation. Accounting
policies for all of our operations are in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. As discussed in Note 13, we have investments in
partnerships, joint ventures and projects.
In accordance with
SOP 90-7, certain
companies qualify for fresh start reporting in connection with
their emergence from bankruptcy. Fresh start reporting is
appropriate on the emergence from chapter 11 if the
reorganization value of the assets of the emerging entity
immediately before the date of confirmation is less than the
total of all post-petition liabilities and allowed claims, and
if the holders of existing voting shares immediately before
confirmation receive less than 50 percent of the voting
shares of the emerging entity. We met these requirements and
adopted Fresh Start reporting resulting in the creation of a new
reporting entity designated as Reorganized NRG.
The bankruptcy court issued a confirmation order approving our
plan of reorganization on November 24, 2003. Under the
requirements of
SOP 90-7, the
Fresh Start date is determined to be the confirmation date
unless significant uncertainties exist regarding the
effectiveness of the bankruptcy order. Our plan of
reorganization required completion of the Xcel Energy settlement
agreement prior to emergence from bankruptcy. The Xcel Energy
settlement agreement was entered into on December 5, 2003.
We believe this settlement agreement was a significant
contingency and thus delayed the Fresh Start date until the Xcel
Energy settlement agreement was finalized on December 5,
2003.
Under the requirements of Fresh Start, we adjusted our assets
and liabilities, other than deferred income taxes, to their
estimated fair values as of December 5, 2003. As a result
of marking our assets and liabilities to their estimated fair
values, we determined that there was a negative reorganization
value that was reallocated back to our tangible and intangible
assets. Deferred taxes were determined in accordance with
SFAS 109. The
142
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
net effect of all Fresh Start adjustments resulted in a gain of
$3.9 billion (comprised of a $4.2 billion gain from
continuing operations and a $0.3 billion loss from
discontinued operations), which is reflected in the Predecessor
Companys results for the period January 1, 2003
through December 5, 2003. The application of the Fresh
Start provisions of
SOP 90-7 created a
new reporting entity having no retained earnings or accumulated
deficit.
As part of the bankruptcy process we engaged an independent
financial advisor to assist in the determination of our
reorganized enterprise value. The fair value calculation was
based on managements forecast of expected cash flows from
our core assets. Managements forecast incorporated forward
commodity market prices obtained from a third party consulting
firm. A discounted cash flow calculation was used to develop the
enterprise value of Reorganized NRG, determined in part by
calculating the weighted average cost of capital of the
Reorganized NRG. The Discounted Cash Flow, or DCF, valuation
methodology equates the value of an asset or business to the
present value of expected future economic benefits to be
generated by that asset or business. The DCF methodology is a
forward looking approach that discounts expected
future economic benefits by a theoretical or observed discount
rate. The independent financial advisor prepared a
30-year cash flow
forecast using a discount rate of approximately 11%. The
resulting reorganization enterprise value as included in the
bankruptcy Disclosure Statement ranged from $5.5 billion to
$5.7 billion. The independent financial advisor then
subtracted our project-level debt and made several other
adjustments to reflect the values of assets held for sale,
excess cash and collateral requirements to estimate a range of
Reorganized NRG equity value of between $2.2 billion and
$2.6 billion.
In constructing our Fresh Start balance sheet upon our emergence
from bankruptcy, we used a reorganization equity value of
approximately $2.4 billion, as we believe this value to be
the best indication of the value of the ownership distributed to
the new equity owners. Our reorganization value of approximately
$9.1 billion was determined by adding our reorganized
equity value of $2.4 billion, $3.7 billion of interest
bearing debt and our other liabilities of $3.0 billion. The
reorganization value represents the fair value of an entity
before liabilities and approximates the amount a willing buyer
would pay for the assets of the entity immediately after
restructuring. This value is consistent with the voting
creditors and Courts approval of the Plan of
Reorganization.
A separate plan of reorganization was filed for our Northeast
Generating and South Central Generating entities that was
confirmed by the bankruptcy court on November 25, 2003, and
became effective on December 23, 2003, when the final
conditions of the plan were completed. In connection with Fresh
Start on December 5, 2003, we have accounted for these
entities as if they had emerged from bankruptcy at the same time
that we emerged, as we believe that we continued to maintain
control over the Northeast Generating and South Central
Generating facilities throughout the bankruptcy process.
Due to the adoption of Fresh Start upon our emergence from
bankruptcy, the Reorganized NRG statement of operations and
statement of cash flows have not been prepared on a consistent
basis with the Predecessor Companys statement of
operations and statement of cash flows and are therefore not
comparable to these statements prior to the application of Fresh
Start.
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents |
Cash and cash equivalents include highly liquid investments
(primarily commercial paper and money market accounts) with an
original maturity of three months or less at the time of
purchase.
Restricted cash consists primarily of funds held to satisfy the
requirements of certain debt agreements and funds held within
our projects that are restricted in their use. These funds are
used to pay for current operating expenses and current debt
service payments, per the restrictions of the debt agreements.
143
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Inventory is valued at the lower of weighted average cost or
market and consists principally of fuel oil, coal, emission
allowances and raw materials used to generate steam. Spare parts
inventory is valued at weighted average cost, as we expect to
recover these costs in the ordinary course of business. Sales of
inventory are classified as an operating activity in the
consolidated statements of cash flows.
|
|
|
Property, Plant and Equipment |
Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost however
impairment adjustments are recorded whenever events or changes
in circumstances indicate carrying values may not be
recoverable. On December 5, 2003, we recorded adjustments
to the property, plant and equipment to reflect such items at
fair value in accordance with Fresh Start reporting. A new cost
basis was established with these adjustments. Significant
additions or improvements extending asset lives are capitalized,
while repairs and maintenance that do not improve or extend the
life of the respective asset are charged to expense as incurred.
Depreciation will be computed using the straight-line method
over the following estimated useful lives:
|
|
|
Facilities and equipment
|
|
1-42 years |
Office furnishings and equipment
|
|
2-10 years |
The assets and related accumulated depreciation amounts are
adjusted for asset retirements and disposals with the resulting
gain or loss included in operations.
Long-lived assets that are held and used are reviewed for
impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
carrying values may not be recoverable. Such reviews are
performed in accordance with SFAS 144. An impairment loss
is recognized if the total future estimated undiscounted cash
flows expected from an asset are less than its carrying value.
An impairment charge is measured by the difference between an
assets carrying amount and fair value and included in
operating costs and expenses in the statement of operations.
Fair values are determined by a variety of valuation methods,
including appraisals, sales prices of similar assets and present
value techniques.
Investments accounted for by the equity method are reviewed for
impairment in accordance with APB 18 which requires that a
loss in value of an investment that is other than a temporary
decline should be recognized. We identify and measure losses in
value of equity investments based upon a comparison of fair
value to carrying value.
Long-lived assets are classified as discontinued operations when
all of the required criteria specified in SFAS 144 are met.
These criteria include, among others, existence of a qualified
plan to dispose of an asset, an assessment that completion of a
sale within one year is probable and approval of the appropriate
level of management. Discontinued operations are reported at the
lower of the assets carrying amount or fair value less
cost to sell.
Interest incurred on funds borrowed to finance projects expected
to require more than three months to complete is capitalized.
Capitalization of interest is discontinued when the asset under
construction is ready for its intended use or when a project is
terminated or construction ceased. Capitalized interest was
approximately $0.2 million, $3 million,
$1 million, and $5 million for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and
144
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
December 31, 2004, and the periods December 6, 2003 to
December 31, 2003 and January 1, 2003 to
December 5, 2003, respectively.
|
|
|
Capitalized Project Costs |
Development costs and capitalized project costs include third
party professional services, permits, and other costs that are
incurred incidental to a particular project. Such costs are
expensed as incurred until an acquisition agreement or letter of
intent is signed, and our Board of Directors has approved the
project. Additional costs incurred after this point are
capitalized. When a project begins operations, previously
capitalized project costs are reclassified to equity investments
in affiliates or property, plant and equipment and amortized on
a straight-line basis over the lesser of the life of the
projects related assets or revenue contract period.
Capitalized costs are charged to expense if a project is
abandoned or management otherwise determines the costs to be
unrecoverable.
Debt issuance costs are capitalized and amortized as interest
expense on a basis which approximates the effective interest
method over the terms of the related debt.
Intangible assets represent contractual rights held by us.
Intangible assets are amortized over their economic useful life
and reviewed for impairment on a periodic basis.
The Reorganized NRGs income tax provision for the years
ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, and for
the period December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003
has been recorded on the basis that we and our
U.S. subsidiaries reconsolidated for federal income tax
purposes as of December 6, 2003. The Reorganized NRG is no
longer owned by Xcel Energy and thus, no longer included in the
Xcel Energy affiliated group. The change in ownership allows us
to file a consolidated federal income tax return with our
U.S. subsidiaries starting on December 6, 2003.
The Predecessor Companys income tax provision has been
recorded on the basis that Xcel Energy has not included us in
its consolidated federal income tax return following Xcel
Energys acquisition of our public shares on June 3,
2002. Since we and our U.S. subsidiaries will not be
included in the Xcel Energys consolidated tax group, each
of our U.S. subsidiaries that is classified as a
corporation for U.S. income tax purposes filed a separate
federal income tax return for the period ended December 5,
2003.
Deferred income taxes are recognized for the tax consequences in
future years of temporary differences between the tax basis of
assets and liabilities and their financial reporting amounts at
each year-end based on enacted tax laws and statutory tax rates
applicable to the periods in which the differences are expected
to affect taxable income. Income tax expense is the tax payable
for the period and the change during the period in deferred tax
assets and liabilities. A valuation allowance is recorded to
reduce deferred tax assets to the amount more likely than not to
be realized.
We are primarily an electric generation company, operating a
portfolio of majority-owned electric generating plants and
certain plants in which our ownership interest is 50% or less
which are accounted for under the equity method of accounting.
In connection with our electric generation business, we also
produce thermal energy for sale to customers, principally
through steam and chilled water facilities. We also collect
145
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
methane gas from landfill sites, which are used for the
generation of electricity. In addition, we sell small amounts of
natural gas and oil to third parties.
Energy. Both physical and financial transactions are
entered into to optimize the financial performance of our
generating facilities. Electric energy revenue is recognized
upon transmission to the customer. We record gross revenues in
regions where bilateral markets exist and physical delivery of
electricity is common from our plants under the accrual method.
In certain markets, which are operated and/or controlled by an
ISO and in which we have entered into a netting agreement with
the ISO, which results in our receiving a netted invoice, we
have recorded purchased energy as an offset against revenues
received upon the sale of such energy. Revenues derived from the
buying and selling of electricity from an ISO and not sourced
from our facilities are reported net.
Capacity. Capacity and ancillary revenue is recognized
when contractually earned, and consists of revenues received
from a third party at either the market or negotiated contract
rates for making installed generation capacity available in
order to satisfy system integrity and reliability requirements.
We provide contract operations and maintenance services to some
of our non-consolidated affiliates. Revenue is recognized as
contract services are performed.
Revenue from Sales of Emission Allowances. During 2005,
we began selling our excess
SO2
emission allowances. We record the sale of these allowances in
Operating Revenues. The cost basis of these allowances,
established upon the adoption of Fresh Start, is recorded in
Operating Costs and Expenses. Beginning in 2006, we will
actively manage our
SO2
emission allowances as well as fuels, and we will account for
such asset optimization activity related to emission allowances
and other fuel commodities under
EITF 02-3,
Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts
Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy
Trading and Risk Management Activities. As such,
revenues and costs for the asset and optimization activities
would be reflected on a net basis in the consolidated statement
of operations.
Contract Amortization. At Fresh Start we recognized
liabilities for power sales agreements related to the sale of
electric capacity and energy in future periods where the fair
value was determined to be significantly out of market as
compared to market expectations. The liability is being
amortized as an increase to revenue over the term of each
underlying contract based on actual generation. The carrying
amount of the unfavorable
out-of-market power
sales agreements at December 31, 2005 and 2004 was
$298 million and $319 million, respectively. The
estimated annual amortization of the
out-of-market power
sales agreements for each of the five succeeding years is
expected to approximate $37 million in 2006,
$28 million in 2007, $24 million in 2008,
$24 million in 2009 and $20 million for 2010.
Disputed Revenues. Disputed revenues are not recorded in
the financial statements until disputes are effectively resolved
and collection is reasonably assured.
|
|
|
Derivative Financial Instruments |
In January 2001, we adopted SFAS 133, as amended by
SFAS 137, SFAS 138 and SFAS 149. SFAS 133,
as amended, requires us to record all derivatives on the balance
sheet at fair value. In some cases hedge accounting may apply.
The criteria used to determine if hedge accounting treatment is
appropriate are a) the designation of the hedge to
an underlying exposure, b) whether or not the overall risk
is being reduced, and c) if there is correlation between
the value of the derivative instrument and the underlying
obligation. Formal documentation of the hedging relationship,
the nature of the underlying risk, the risk management
objective, and the means by which effectiveness will be assessed
is created at the inception of the hedge. Changes in the fair
value of non-hedge derivatives are immediately recognized in
earnings. Changes in the fair value of derivatives accounted for
as hedges are either recognized in earnings as an offset to the
changes in the fair value of the related hedged assets,
liabilities and firm commitments or for forecasted transactions,
deferred and recorded as a component of accumulated other
comprehensive income, or OCI,
146
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
until the hedged transactions occur and are recognized in
earnings. We primarily account for derivatives under
SFAS 133, as amended, for as long-term power sales
contracts, long-term gas purchase contracts and other energy
related commodities and financial instruments used to mitigate
variability in earnings due to fluctuations in spot market
prices, hedge fuel requirements at generation facilities and to
protect investments in fuel inventories. SFAS 133, as
amended, also applies to interest rate swaps and foreign
currency exchange rate contracts. The application of
SFAS 133, as amended, results in increased volatility in
earnings due to the recognition of unrealized gains and losses.
In determining the fair value of these derivative/financial
instruments we use estimates, various assumptions, judgment of
management and when considered appropriate, third party experts
in determining the fair value of these derivatives.
|
|
|
Foreign Currency Translation and Transaction Gains and
Losses |
The local currencies are generally the functional currency of
our foreign operations. Foreign currency denominated assets and
liabilities are translated at
end-of-period rates of
exchange. Revenues, expenses and cash flows are translated at
weighted-average rates of exchange for the period. The resulting
currency translation adjustments are accumulated and reported as
a separate component of stockholders equity and are not
included in the determination of the results of operations.
Foreign currency transaction gains or losses are reported in
results of operations. We recognized foreign currency
transaction gains (losses) of $(1) million,
$2 million, $0.4 million, and $(20) million for
the years ended December 31, 2005, December 31, 2004,
and the periods December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003
and January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003, respectively.
|
|
|
Concentrations of Credit Risk |
Financial instruments, which potentially subject us to
concentrations of credit risk, consist primarily of cash, trust
funds, accounts receivable, notes receivable and investments in
debt securities. Cash accounts and trust funds are generally
held in federally insured banks. Accounts receivable, notes
receivable and derivative instruments are concentrated within
entities engaged in the energy industry. These industry
concentrations may impact our overall exposure to credit risk,
either positively or negatively, in that the customers may be
similarly affected by changes in economic, industry or other
conditions. Receivables are generally not collateralized;
however, we believe the credit risk posed by industry
concentration is offset by the diversification and
creditworthiness of our customer base.
|
|
|
Fair Value of Financial Instruments |
The carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents, trust funds,
receivables, accounts payables, and accrued liabilities
approximate fair value because of the short maturity of these
instruments. The carrying amounts of long-term receivables
usually approximate fair value, as the effective rates for these
instruments are comparable to market rates at year-end,
including current portions. Any differences are disclosed in
Note 5. The fair value of long-term debt is estimated based
on quoted market prices for those instruments which are traded
or on a present value method using current interest rates for
similar instruments with equivalent credit quality.
The determination of our obligation and expenses for pension
benefits is dependent on the selection of certain assumptions.
These assumptions determined by management include the discount
rate, the expected rate of return on plan assets and the rate of
future compensation increases. Our actuarial consultants use
assumptions for such items as retirement age. The assumptions
used may differ materially from actual results, which may result
in a significant impact to the amount of pension obligation or
expense recorded by us.
147
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During the fourth quarter of 2003, in accordance with
SFAS Statement No. 148, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation Transition and
Disclosure we adopted SFAS 123 under the
prospective transition method which requires the application of
the recognition provisions to all employee awards granted,
modified, or settled after the beginning of the fiscal year in
which the recognition provisions are first applied. As a result,
we applied the fair value recognition provisions of
SFAS 123 as of January 1, 2003. We recognize
compensation expense on a graded vesting basis for non-qualified
stock option grants issued under the Long-Term Incentive Plan.
The Black-Scholes option-pricing model is used for all
non-qualified stock options. We recognize compensation expense
on a straight-line basis over the applicable vesting period for
restricted stock units (RSUs) and performance units (PUs). We
use our common stock price on the date of grant as the fair
value of the RSUs, while the fair value of the PUs is
estimated on the date of grant using the Monte Carlo valuation
model. In January 2006, we will adopt SFAS 123(R) under a
modified version of prospective application as discussed below
in Recent Accounting Pronouncements.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at
the date of the financial statements, disclosure of contingent
assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements
and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
reporting period. Actual results could differ from these
estimates.
In recording transactions and balances resulting from business
operations, we use estimates based on the best information
available. Estimates are used for such items as plant
depreciable lives, tax provisions, uncollectible accounts,
actuarially determined benefit costs, and the valuation of
long-term energy commodities contracts and environmental
liabilities, and legal costs incurred in connection with
recorded loss contingencies, among others. In addition,
estimates are used to test long-lived assets for impairment and
to determine fair value of impaired assets. As better
information becomes available (or actual amounts are
determinable), the recorded estimates are revised. Consequently,
operating results can be affected by revisions to prior
accounting estimates.
Certain prior-year amounts have been reclassified for
comparative purposes. These reclassifications had no effect on
our net income or total stockholders equity as previously
reported.
|
|
|
Recent Accounting Developments |
During the period, the FASB issued FIN 47 to clarify the
term conditional asset retirement obligation as used
in SFAS 143 governing the application of Asset Retirement
Obligations. SFAS 143 refers to a legal obligation to
perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or
method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may
or may not be within the control of the entity. The obligation
to perform the asset retirement activity is unconditional but
there may remain some uncertainty as to the timing and/or method
of settlement. Accordingly, an entity is required to recognize a
liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement
obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably
estimated. The fair value of a liability for the conditional
asset retirement obligation should be recognized when
incurred generally upon acquisition, construction,
or development and/or through the normal operation of the asset.
SFAS 143 acknowledges that in some cases, sufficient
information may not be available to reasonably estimate the fair
value of an asset retirement obligation. FIN 47 clarifies
when the company would have sufficient information to reasonably
estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation.
FIN 47 is
148
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005.
This guidance does not materially affect our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or statement of cash
flows.
Also during the period, the SEC issued Staff Accounting
Bulletin 107, or SAB 107, which addresses the
application of SFAS 123(R). SAB 107 was issued to
assist registrants by simplifying some of the implementation
challenges of SFAS 123(R) while enhancing the information
that investors receive. SAB 107 creates a framework that is
premised on two overarching themes considerable
judgment will be required by preparers to successfully implement
SFAS 123(R), specifically when valuing employee stock
options, and that reasonable individuals, acting in good faith,
may conclude differently on the fair value of employee stock
options. Accordingly, situations in which there is only one
acceptable fair value estimate are expected to be rare. In
addition, the SEC extended the adoption date to registrants for
the implementation of SFAS 123(R) and SAB 107 so that
they may implement this guidance for their fiscal year which
begins after September 15, 2005. We will adopt
SFAS 123(R) and SAB 107 on January 1, 2006 under
a modified version of prospective application, or the modified
prospective application. Under modified prospective application,
we will apply the provisions of SFAS 123(R) to new awards
and to awards modified, repurchased, or cancelled after the
required effective date. In addition to applying a forfeiture
rate to new awards, we are required to apply a forfeiture rate
to existing awards and, if material, eliminate from balance
sheet amounts and recognize in income as the cumulative effect
of a change in accounting principle as of the required effective
date. This guidance will not materially affect our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or statement of cash
flows.
Subsequent to release of SFAS 123R, the FASB issued Staff
Position No. FAS 123R-3, Transition Election
Related to Accounting for the Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment
Awards, or FSP FAS 123R-3, on November 10,
2005. FSP FAS 123R-3 provides a one-time election related
to the accounting for the tax benefits from share-based
compensation cost since the adoption of FAS 123, and allows
for purposes of calculating current tax expense, the aggregation
of tax benefits recognized for share-based compensation in
excess of financial statement tax benefits since adoption of
FAS 123 in lieu of the award-by-award basis prescribed by
SFAS 123R. We are currently evaluating the impact of this
election, but do not expect this guidance to materially affect
our consolidated financial position, results of operations or
statement of cash flows.
On March 17, 2005, the Emerging Issues Task Force, or EITF,
issued EITF No. 04-6 Accounting for Stripping
Costs Incurred during Production in the Mining
Industry, or
EITF 04-6.
EITF 04-6 provides
that costs incurred to remove overburden and waste material to
access coal seams, or stripping costs, during the production
phase of a mine are variable production costs that should be
included in the costs of the inventory produced during the
period that the stripping costs are incurred.
EITF 04-6 is
effective for the first reporting period in fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2005. Our MIBRAG equity
investment is a 50% interest in a mining company, which will be
negatively affected by this pronouncement. Currently, MIBRAG has
an asset totaling approximately
157 million,
approximately $185 million, representing the stripping
costs incurred during production as of December 31, 2005.
The adoption of
EITF 04-6 will not
have a material impact on our consolidated results of
operations, but will have a material impact on our consolidated
financial position. Following adoption on January 1, 2006,
our investment in MIBRAG will be reduced by 50% of the above
mentioned asset, approximately $93 million, with an
offsetting charge to retained earnings.
Also during the period, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections a
replacement of APB Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement
No. 3, or SFAS 154. This Statement replaces APB
Opinion No. 20, Accounting Changes, or
APB 20, and FASB Statement No. 3, Reporting
Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements,
and changes the requirements for the accounting for and
reporting of a change in accounting principle. This Statement
applies to all voluntary changes in accounting principle. It
also applies to changes required by an accounting pronouncement
in the unusual instance that the pronouncement does not include
specific transition provisions. When a pronouncement includes
specific
149
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
transition provisions, those provisions should be followed.
APB 20 previously required that most voluntary changes in
accounting principle be recognized by including in net income of
the period of the change the cumulative effect of changing to
the new accounting principle. This Statement requires
retrospective application to prior periods financial
statements of changes in accounting principle for direct effects
of the change, unless it is impracticable to determine either
the period-specific effects or the cumulative effect of the
change, and redefines restatement as the revising of previously
issued financial statements to reflect the correction of an
error. This Statement shall be effective for accounting changes
and corrections of errors made in fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2005.
On July 12, 2005, the FASB issued Staff Position
APB 18-1, Accounting by an Investor for Its
Proportionate Share of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income of
an Investee Accounted for under the Equity Method in Accordance
with APB Opinion No. 18 upon a Loss of Significant
Influence, or FSP APB 18-1. This guidance
clarifies the application of paragraph 121 of
SFAS No. 130, Reporting Comprehensive
Income, or SFAS 130, and clarifies that the
companys proportionate share of an investees equity
adjustments for OCI should be offset against the carrying value
of the investment at the time significant influence is lost. To
the extent that the offset results in a carrying value of the
investment that is less than zero, an investor should
(a) reduce the carrying value of the investment to zero and
(b) record the remaining balance in income. The guidance in
FSP APB 18-1 is effective as of the first reporting period
after July 12, 2005. Currently, this guidance does not
materially affect our consolidated financial position, results
of operations or statement of cash flows.
On June 29, 2005, the EITF issued EITF Issue No. 04-5,
Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General
Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar
Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights,
or EITF 04-5.
EITF 04-5 provides
a framework for addressing when a general partner controls a
limited partnership when the limited partners have certain
rights.
EITF 04-5s
scope excludes a number of investment types, including limited
partnerships entities that are not variable interest entities
under FIN 46R, and investments accounted for under the pro
rata method of consolidation. The guidance in
EITF 04-5 is
effective immediately to general partners of all new limited
partnerships formed and for existing limited partnerships for
which the partnership agreements are modified. For general
partners in all other limited partnerships, the guidance in
EITF 04-5 is
effective no later than the beginning of the first reporting
period in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005.
Currently, this guidance will not materially affect our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
statement of cash flows.
On June 16, 2005, the EITF issued EITF Issue No. 05-5,
Accounting for Early Retirement or Postemployment
Programs with Specific Features (Such As Terms Specified in
Altersteilzeit Early Retirement Arrangements), or
EITF 05-5.
EITF 05-5 provides
guidance on the accounting for early retirement or
postemployment programs with specific features, and specifically
the terms of Altersteilzeit early retirement arrangements. The
Altersteilzeit (ATZ) arrangement is a voluntary early
retirement program in Germany designed to create an incentive
for employees, within a certain age group, to transition from
employment into retirement before their legal retirement age. If
certain criteria are met by the employer, the German government
provides to the employer a subsidy for bonuses paid to the
employee and the additional contributions paid by the employer
into the German government pension scheme under an ATZ
arrangement for a maximum of six years. The Task Force reached a
consensus that the employer should recognize the government
subsidy when it meets the necessary criteria and is entitled to
the subsidy. The Task Force also reached a consensus that
payments made by the employer relative to the bonus feature and
the additional contributions into the German government pension
scheme (collectively, the additional compensation) should be
accounted for as a post-employment benefit under SFAS 112,
Employers Accounting for Post-employment Benefits,
which prescribes than an entity should recognize the additional
compensation over the period from the point at which the
employee signs the ATZ contract until the end of the active
service period. The guidance of
EITF 05-5 is
effective no later than the beginning of the first reporting
period in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005.
We are currently evaluating the impact of this election, but do
not expect
150
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
this guidance to materially affect our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or statement of cash flows.
|
|
Note 3 |
Emergence from Bankruptcy and Fresh Start Reporting |
In accordance with the requirements of
SOP 90-7, we
determined the reorganization value of NRG and subsidiaries
emerging from bankruptcy to be approximately $9.1 billion.
Reorganization value generally approximates fair value of the
entity before considering liabilities and approximates the
amount a willing buyer would pay for the assets of the entity
immediately after the restructuring. Several methods are used to
determine the reorganization value; however, generally it is
determined by discounting future cash flows for the
reconstituted business that will emerge from chapter 11
bankruptcy. Our approach was consistent in that our independent
financial advisors estimated reorganization enterprise
value of our ongoing projects used a discounted cash flow
approach.
We allocated the reorganization value of $9.1 billion to
our assets in conformity with the procedures specified by
SFAS 141. We used a third party to complete an independent
appraisal of our tangible assets, equity investments and
intangible assets and contracts. In completing the fair value
allocation our assets were calculated to be greater than the
reorganization value. As a result, we reallocated the negative
reorganization value to our tangible and intangible assets in
accordance with SFAS 141. In preparing our balance sheet we
also recorded each liability existing at the plan confirmation
date, other than deferred taxes, at the present value of amounts
to be paid determined at appropriate current interest rates.
Deferred taxes were reported in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles under SFAS 109. Our equity
was recorded at approximately $2.4 billion representing a
price per share of $24.04 for the issuance of 100 million
shares of common stock upon emergence from bankruptcy. We pushed
down the effects of fresh start reporting to all of our
subsidiaries.
In constructing our Fresh Start balance sheet using our
reorganization value upon our emergence from bankruptcy, we used
a reorganization equity value of approximately
$2.4 billion, as we believe this value to be the best
indication of the value of the ownership distributed to the new
equity owners. Accordingly, our reorganization value of
$9.1 billion was determined by adding our reorganized
equity value of $2.4 billion, $3.7 billion of interest
bearing debt and our other liabilities of $3.0 billion.
This value is consistent with the voting creditors and
Courts approval of the Plan of Reorganization.
The determination of the enterprise value and the allocations to
the underlying assets and liabilities were based on a number of
estimates and assumptions, which are inherently subject to
significant uncertainties and contingencies.
We recorded approximately $3.9 billion of net
reorganization income (comprised of a $4.2 billion gain
from continuing operations and a $0.3 billion loss from
discontinued operations) in the Predecessor Companys
statement of operations for 2003, which includes the gain on the
restructuring of debt and equity and the discharge of
obligations subject to compromise for less than recorded
amounts, as well as adjustments to the historical carrying
values of our assets and liabilities to fair market value.
Due to the adoption of Fresh Start as of December 5, 2003,
the Reorganized NRG statement of operations and statement of
cash flows have not been prepared on a consistent basis with the
Predecessor Companys financial statements and are not
comparable in certain respects to the financial statements prior
to
151
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the application of Fresh Start. The accompanying Consolidated
Financial Statements have been prepared to distinguish between
Reorganized NRG and the Predecessor Company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRG | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
Debt Discharge and | |
|
Fresh Start | |
|
|
|
December 6, | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
Exchange of Stock | |
|
Adjustments | |
|
Consolidation | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current Assets
|
|
$ |
1,718 |
|
|
$ |
614 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
2,342 |
|
Non-current Assets
|
|
|
8,172 |
|
|
|
(155 |
) |
|
|
(1,233 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
6,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
9,890 |
|
|
$ |
459 |
|
|
$ |
(1,229 |
) |
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
9,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
2,190 |
|
|
|
999 |
|
|
|
1,187 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
4,377 |
|
Non-current Liabilities
|
|
|
9,458 |
|
|
|
(6,270 |
) |
|
|
(848 |
) |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
2,386 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities
|
|
|
11,648 |
|
|
|
(5,271 |
) |
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
6,763 |
|
Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
(1,758 |
) |
|
|
2,404 |
|
|
|
1,758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
$ |
9,890 |
|
|
$ |
(2,867 |
) |
|
$ |
2,097 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
9,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APB 18 requires us to effectively push down the effects of
Fresh Start reporting to our unconsolidated equity method
investments and to recognize an adjustment to our share of the
earnings or losses of an investee as if the investee was a
consolidated subsidiary. As a result of pushing down the impact
of Fresh Start to our West Coast Power affiliate we determined
that a contract based intangible asset with a one year remaining
life, consisting of the value of West Coast Powers
California Department of Water Resources energy sales contract,
must be established and recognized as a basis adjustment to our
share of the future earnings generated by West Coast Power. This
adjustment reduced our equity earnings in the amount of
approximately $10 million per month during 2004 until the
contract expired in December 2004.
|
|
Note 4 |
Debtors Statements |
As stated above, we and certain of our subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for reorganization under chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code during 2003. On December 5, 2003, we
and five of our subsidiaries emerged from bankruptcy. As of the
respective bankruptcy filing dates, the debtors financial
records were closed for the pre-petition period. As required by
SOP 90-7, below
are the condensed combined financial statements of our remaining
debtors since the date of the bankruptcy filings, or the
Debtors Statements.
The Debtors Statements consist of the following
wholly-owned consolidated entities which remained in bankruptcy
as of December 6, 2003: Arthur Kill Power LLC, Astoria Gas
Turbine Power LLC, Berrians I Gas Turbine Power, LLC, Big
Cajun II Unit 4 LLC, Connecticut Jet Power LLC, Devon Power
LLC, Dunkirk Power LLC, Huntley Power LLC, Louisiana Generating
LLC, LSP-Nelson Energy LLC, Middletown Power LLC, Montville
Power LLC, Northeast Generation Holding LLC, Norwalk Power LLC,
NRG Central US LLC, NRG Eastern LLC, NRG McClain LLC, NRG Nelson
Energy LLC, NRG New Roads Holdings LLC, NRG Northeast Generating
LLC, NRG South Central Generating LLC, Oswego Harbor Power LLC,
Somerset Power LLC, and South Central Generation Holding LLC. As
of December 31, 2005, there were no entities remaining in
bankruptcy.
152
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Debtors Condensed Combined Statement of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
May 15, 2003 | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenue
|
|
$ |
731 |
|
Operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
(620 |
) |
Fresh start reporting adjustments asset write-downs,
net
|
|
|
(1,244 |
) |
Reorganization items
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(1,183 |
) |
Other expense
|
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(1,344 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Debtors Condensed Combined Statement of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
May 15, 2003 | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
Net cash used by investing activities
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
Net cash used by financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 5 |
Financial Instruments |
The estimated fair values of our recorded financial instruments
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, 2005 | |
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Carrying | |
|
|
|
Carrying | |
|
|
|
|
Amount | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
Amount | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
506 |
|
|
$ |
506 |
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
Trust fund investments
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Unfunded letters of credit and surety bonds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
Notes receivable, including current portion
|
|
|
483 |
|
|
|
494 |
|
|
|
649 |
|
|
|
662 |
|
Long-term debt, including current portion
|
|
|
2,682 |
|
|
|
2,809 |
|
|
|
3,484 |
|
|
|
3,624 |
|
153
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash, the carrying
amount approximates fair value because of the short-term
maturity of those instruments. Trust funds investments are
comprised of various U.S. debt securities carried at fair
market value. Unfunded letters of credit and surety bonds are
off balance sheet and are short term by nature. Because of their
short-term characteristics, their balance approximates fair
value.
The fair value of notes receivable is based on expected future
cash flows discounted at market interest rates. The fair value
of long-term debt is estimated based on quoted market prices for
those instruments which are traded or on a present value method
using current interest rates for similar instruments with
equivalent credit quality.
|
|
Note 6 |
Discontinued Operations |
We have classified certain business operations, and
gains/(losses) recognized on sale, as discontinued operations
for projects that were sold or have met the required criteria
for such classification. The financial results for all of these
businesses have been accounted for as discontinued operations.
Accordingly, current period operating results and prior periods
have been restated to report the operations as discontinued. We
have also classified certain assets as held for sale as
management has committed to selling certain long lived assets
within the next year. This classification does not affect prior
period operating results.
SFAS 144 requires that discontinued operations be valued on
an asset-by-asset basis at the lower of carrying amount or fair
value less costs to sell. In applying those provisions our
management considered cash flow analyses, bids and offers
related to those assets and businesses. This amount is included
in income/(loss) on discontinued operations, net of income taxes
in the accompanying Statement of Operations. In accordance with
the provisions of SFAS 144, assets held for sale will not
be depreciated commencing with their classification as such.
154
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The assets and liabilities of the discontinued operations are
reported in the December 31, 2005 and 2004 balance sheets
as discontinued operations. The major classes of assets and
liabilities are presented by geographic area in the following
table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Wholesale | |
|
Wholesale | |
|
|
Power | |
|
Power | |
|
|
Generation | |
|
Generation | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Other | |
|
Other | |
|
|
North | |
|
North | |
|
|
America | |
|
America | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Consists of | |
|
|
|
|
McClain, | |
|
|
|
|
Northbrook | |
|
|
|
|
New York, | |
|
|
|
|
Northbrook | |
|
|
Consists of | |
|
Energy and | |
|
|
Audrain | |
|
Audrain | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Receivables, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Inventory
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
Notes Receivable
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
457 |
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Accounts payable trade
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities discontinued operations
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current liabilities discontinued
operations
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
288 |
|
155
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes our discontinued operations for
all periods presented in our consolidated financial statements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial Discontinued |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operations |
|
|
Project |
|
Segment |
|
Treatment Date |
|
Disposal Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killingholme
|
|
Other International |
|
Fourth Quarter 2002 |
|
First Quarter 2003 |
NLGI
|
|
Alternative Energy |
|
Second Quarter 2003 |
|
Second Quarter 2003 |
TERI
|
|
Non-Generation |
|
Third Quarter 2003 |
|
Third Quarter 2003 |
McClain
|
|
Other North America |
|
Third Quarter 2003 |
|
Third Quarter 2004 |
NEO Corporation (NEO Fort Smith LLC, NEO Woodville LLC, NEO
Phoenix LLC)
|
|
Alternative Energy |
|
Fourth Quarter 2003 |
|
Fourth Quarter 2003 |
Cahua and Energia Pacasmayo
|
|
Other International |
|
Fourth Quarter 2003 |
|
Fourth Quarter 2003 |
PERC
|
|
Other North America |
|
First Quarter 2004 |
|
Second Quarter 2004 |
Cobee
|
|
Other International |
|
First Quarter 2004 |
|
Second Quarter 2004 |
Hsin Yu
|
|
Other International |
|
Second Quarter 2004 |
|
Second Quarter 2004 |
LSP Energy (Batesville)
|
|
Other North America |
|
Second Quarter 2004 |
|
Third Quarter 2004 |
NEO Corporation (NEO Nashville LLC, NEO Hackensack LLC, NEO
Prima Deshecha LLC and NEO Tajiguas LLC)
|
|
Alternative Energy |
|
Third Quarter 2004 |
|
Third Quarter 2004 |
Northbrook New York and Northbrook Energy
|
|
Other North America |
|
Third Quarter 2005 |
|
Third Quarter 2005 |
Audrain
|
|
Other North America |
|
Fourth Quarter 2005 |
|
Second Quarter 2006 |
156
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Summarized results of operations were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
Description |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
|
$ |
263 |
|
Operating costs and other expenses
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-tax income/(loss) from operations of discontinued components
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(490 |
) |
Income tax expense/(benefit)
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from operations of discontinued components
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(468 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal of discontinued components pre-tax gain
(net)
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
152 |
|
Income tax expense/(benefit)
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disposal of discontinued components gain (net)
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) on discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
(316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and other expenses for 2005 shown in the table
above include the impairment of Audrains fixed assets and
consequent reduction in the estimated liability by approximately
$57 million, offsetting each other with no impact to
Audrains results. Due to the sale of our Audrain facility
to AmerenUE for $115 million, the fixed asset was impaired
to its fair value. Based on the agreement with CSFB, CSFB will
receive only $115 million, reducing the corresponding
estimated liability.
157
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Operating costs and other expenses for 2004 include asset
impairment charges of approximately $0.2 million. Operating
costs and other expenses for 2003 include asset impairment
charges of approximately $226 million, comprised of
approximately $101 million for McClain, $24 million
for NLGI and $101 for Audrain. The pre-tax gain or loss on
disposals of discontinued components consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
Project |
|
Segment |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
Northbrook Energy, Northbrook New York
|
|
Other North America |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
McClain
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PERC
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cobee
|
|
Other International |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LSP Energy Batesville
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hsin Yu
|
|
Other International |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEO Nashville, Hackensack, Prima Deshecha, Tajiguas
|
|
Alternative Energy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killingholme
|
|
Other International |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191 |
|
TERI
|
|
Non-Generation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Cahua and Energia Pacasmayo
|
|
Other International |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gain on disposal of discontinued components
pre-tax
|
|
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Audrain Generating LLC On December 8,
2005 NRG entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement to
sell all the assets of NRG Audrain Generating LLC, or Audrain,
to AmerenUE, a subsidiary of Ameren Corporation. The purchase
price is $115 million, subject to customary purchase price
adjustments. The transaction is expected to close during the
second quarter of 2006. The sale is subject to customary
approvals, including Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Missouri Public Utilities Commission, Illinois Commerce
Commission, and Hart-Scott-Rodino review. We expect to record a
gain of approximately $15 million at closing.
Northbrook New York LLC and Northbrook Energy
LLC On August 11, 2005, we completed the
sale of Northbrook New York LLC and Northbrook Energy LLC. In
exchange for the sale, we received net cash proceeds of
$36 million and paid off Northbrook New York LLCs
third party debt of $17 million. We recognized a net
pre-tax gain of $12 million in the third quarter of 2005.
McClain We reviewed the recoverability of our
McClain assets pursuant to SFAS No. 144 and recorded a
charge of $101 million in the second quarter of 2003. On
August 14, 2003, NRGs Board of Directors approved a
plan to sell its 77% interest in McClain Generating Station, a
520-MW combined-cycle,
natural gas-fired facility located in New Castle, Oklahoma. On
July 9, 2004, NRG McClain completed the sale of its 77%
interest in the McClain Generating Station to Oklahoma
Gas & Electric Company. The Oklahoma Municipal Power
Authority will continue to own the remaining 23% interest in the
facility. The proceeds of $160 million from the sale were
used to repay outstanding project debt under the secured term
158
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
loan and working capital facility. A loss of $3 million was
recognized as of June 30, 2004 based upon the final terms
of the sale.
Penobscot Energy Recovery Company (PERC)
During the first quarter of 2004, we received board
authorization to proceed with the sale of our interest in PERC
to SET PERC Investment LLC which reached financial closing in
April 2004. Upon completion of the transaction, we received net
proceeds of $18 million, resulting in a gain of
approximately $3 million.
Cobee During the first quarter of 2004, we
entered into an agreement for the sale of our interest in our
Cobee project to Globeleq Holdings Limited, which reached
financial closing in April 2004. Upon completion of the
transaction, we received net proceeds of approximately
$50 million, resulting in a gain of $3 million.
LSP Energy Batesville On
August 24, 2004, we completed the sale of our
100 percent interest in an 837-megawatt generating plant in
Batesville, Mississippi to CEP Batesville Acquisition, LLC. CEP
Batesville Acquisition, LLC assumed approximately
$300 million of outstanding project debt. The transaction
resulted in the elimination of $289 million in consolidated
debt from NRG Energys balance sheet. In exchange for the
sale, we received cash proceeds of $28 million. We recorded
a gain of $11 million in 2004.
Hsin Yu During the second quarter of 2004, we
entered into an agreement for the sale of our interest in our
Hsin Yu project to a minority interest shareholder, Asia Pacific
Energy Development Company Ltd., which reached financial closing
in May 2004. Completion of the transaction resulted in a gain of
approximately $10 million, resulting from our negative
equity in the project. In addition, although we have no
continuing involvement in the project, we retained the prospect
of receiving an additional $1 million in additional
proceeds upon final closing of Phase II of the project.
NEO Corporation In November 2003, we entered
into a settlement agreement with Cambrian where we agreed to
transfer our 100% interest in three gasco projects (NEO
Ft. Smith, NEO Phoenix and NEO Woodville). During the third
quarter of 2004, we completed the sale of four wholly-owned
entities NEO Nashville LLC, NEO Hackensack LLC, NEO
Prima Deshecha LLC and NEO Tajiguas LLC, as well as the sale of
several NEO investments Four Hills LLC, Minnesota
Methane II LLC, NEO Montauk Genco LLC and NEO Montauk Gasco
LLC to Algonquin Power of Canada. Upon completion of the
transaction, we received cash proceeds of $6 million,
resulting in a $6 million gain associated with the four
wholly-owned entities sold and received cash proceeds of
$6 million resulting in a loss of approximately
$4 million attributable to the equity investments sold. The
sale of these equity investments do not qualify for reporting
purposes as discontinued operations.
Killingholme In January 2003, we completed
the sale of our interest in the Killingholme project to our
lenders for a nominal value and forgiveness of outstanding debt
with a carrying value of approximately $360 million at
December 31, 2002. The sale of our interest in the
Killingholme project and the release of debt obligations
resulted in a gain on sale in the first quarter of 2003 of
approximately $191 million. The gain results from the
write-down of the projects assets in the third quarter of
2002 below the carrying value of the related debt.
NLGI During the quarter ended March 31,
2003, we recorded impairment charges of $24 million related
to subsidiaries of NLGI and a charge of $14 million to
write off our 50% investment in Minnesota Methane, LLC. Through
April 30, 2003, NRG Energy and NLGI failed to make certain
payments causing a default under NLGIs term loan
agreements. In May 2003, the project lenders to the wholly-owned
subsidiaries of NLGI and Minnesota Methane LLC foreclosed on our
membership interest in the NLGI subsidiaries and our equity
interest in Minnesota Methane LLC. There was no material gain or
loss recognized as a result of the foreclosure.
TERI In September 2003, we completed the sale
of TERI, a biomass waste-fuel power plant located in Florida and
a wood processing facility located in Georgia, to DG Telogia
Power, LLC. The sale resulted in
159
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
net proceeds of approximately $1 million. We entered into
an agreement to sell the wood processing facility on behalf of
DG Telogia Power, LLC. This sale was completed during fourth
quarter 2003 and we received cash consideration of approximately
$1 million, resulting in a net gain on sale of
approximately $1 million.
Cahua and Energia Pacasmayo In November 2003,
we completed the sale of Cahua and Energia Pacasmayo resulting
in net cash proceeds of approximately $16 million and a
loss of $37 million. In addition, we received an additional
consideration adjustment of approximately $1 million during
2004.
|
|
Note 7 |
Write Downs and (Gains)/ Losses on Sales of Equity Method
Investments |
Investments accounted for by the equity method are reviewed for
impairment in accordance with APB 18 which requires that a
loss in value of an investment that is other than a temporary
decline should be recognized. Gains or losses are recognized on
completion of the sale. Write downs and (gains)/losses on sales
of equity method investments recorded in other income/expense in
the consolidated statement of operations includes the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
Segment |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
|
Saguaro
|
|
Western |
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Rocky Road
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kendall
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enfield
|
|
Other International |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth Atlantic Limited Partnership
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James River Power LLC
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEO Corporation
|
|
Alternative Energy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calpine Cogeneration
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NLGI Minnesota Methane
|
|
Alternative Energy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
NLGI MM Biogas
|
|
Alternative Energy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
ECKG
|
|
Other International |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Loy Yang
|
|
Australia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146 |
|
Mustang
|
|
Other North America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total write downs and losses on sales of equity method
investments
|
|
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saguaro During the fourth quarter of 2005,
due to the expiration of its long-term gas supply contract and
higher market prices paid for natural gas, NRG determined that a
decline in the value of its 50% investment in Saguaro was
considered to be permanent and recorded a write down of its
investment of approximately $27 million.
Rocky Road In December 2005, NRG entered into
a purchase and sale agreements (PSA) with Dynegy, Inc.
whereby we have agreed to sell to Dynegy our 50% ownership
interest in Rocky Road Power LLC for $45 million cash. As a
result of the PSA with Dynegy, during December 2005, we recorded
an
160
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
impairment charge of approximately $20 million to write
down the value of our 50% interest in Rocky Road to the fair
value of $45 million.
Kendall In December 2004, we sold out
interest in Kendall to LS Power Associates, L.P. or LS Power.
Under the terms of the December 2004 agreement, we retained the
right to acquire a 40% interest in the plant within a
10-year period for a
nominal amount, or the Call Option. Therefore, the transaction
was treated as a partial sale for accounting purposes. On
August 8, 2005, we executed an agreement with LS Power to
sell the Call Option for $5 million. A pre-tax gain of
$4 million was recognized in the third quarter of 2005.
Enfield On April 1, 2005, we completed
the sale of our 25% interest in Enfield to Infrastructure
Alliance Limited. The sale resulted in net pre-tax proceeds of
$65 million. A pre-tax gain of approximately
$12 million was recorded in the second quarter of 2005.
Commonwealth Atlantic Limited Partnership
(CALP) In June 2004, we executed an agreement to
sell our 50% interest in CALP. During the third quarter of 2004,
we recorded an impairment charge of approximately
$4 million to write down the value of our investment in
CALP to its fair value. The sale closed in November 2004
resulting in net cash proceeds of $15 million. Total
impairment charges as a result of the sale were approximately
$5 million.
James River Power LLC In September 2004, we
executed an agreement with Colonial Power Company LLC to sell
all of our outstanding shares of stock in Capistrano
Cogeneration Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG Energy
which owns a 50% interest in James River Cogeneration Company at
which time we recorded an impairment charge of approximately
$6 million to write down the value of our investment in
James River to its fair value. During the fourth quarter of
2004, the sales agreement was terminated. Total impairment
charges for 2004 were approximately $7 million.
NEO Corporation On September 30, 2004,
we completed the sale of several NEO investments
Four Hills LLC, Minnesota Methane II LLC, NEO Montauk Genco
LLC and NEO Montauk Gasco LLC to Algonquin Power of Canada. The
sale also included four wholly-owned NEO subsidiaries (see
Note 6). We received cash proceeds of approximately
$6 million. The sale resulted in a loss of approximately
$4 million attributable to the equity investment entities
sold.
Calpine Cogeneration In January 2004, we
executed an agreement to sell our 20% interest in Calpine
Cogeneration Corporation to Calpine Power Company. The
transaction closed in March 2004 and resulted in net cash
proceeds of $3 million. During the second quarter of 2004,
we received additional consideration on the sale of
$1 million, resulting in an adjusted net gain of
$1 million.
NLGI Minnesota Methane . We
recorded an impairment charge of $15 million during the
first quarter of 2003. This charge was related to a revised
project outlook and managements belief that the decline in
fair value was other than temporary. In May 2003, the project
lenders to the wholly-owned subsidiaries of NEO Landfill Gas,
Inc. and Minnesota Methane LLC foreclosed on our membership
interest in the NEO Landfill Gas, Inc. subsidiaries and our
equity interest in Minnesota Methane LLC. Upon completion of the
foreclosure, we recorded a gain of $2 million resulting in
a net impairment charge of $12 million. The gain upon
completion of the foreclosure resulted from the release of
certain obligations upon completion of the foreclosure.
NLGI MM Biogas In November 2003,
we entered into a sales agreement with Cambrian Energy
Development to sell our 50% interest in MM Biogas. We recorded
an impairment charge of $3 million during the fourth
quarter of 2003 due to developments related to the sale that
indicated an impairment of our book value that was considered to
be other than temporary.
ECKG In September 2002, we announced that we
had reached agreement to sell our 44.5% interest in the ECKG
power station in connection with our Csepel power generating
facilities, and our interest in Entrade, an electricity trading
business, to Atel, an independent energy group headquartered in
Switzerland.
161
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The transaction closed in January 2003 and resulted in cash
proceeds of $65 million and a net loss of less than
$1 million. In accordance with the purchase agreement, we
were to receive additional consideration if Atel purchased
shares held by our partner. During the second quarter of 2003,
we received approximately $4 million of additional
consideration resulting in a net gain of approximately
$3 million.
Loy Yang In May 2003, we entered into
negotiations that culminated in the completion of a Share
Purchase Agreement to sell 100% of the Loy Yang project.
Consequently, we recorded an impairment charge of approximately
$146 million during 2003. In April 2004 we completed the
sale of Loy Yang which resulted in net cash proceeds of
approximately $27 million and a loss of approximately
$1 million.
Mustang Station On July 7, 2003, we
completed the sale of our 25% interest in Mustang Station, a
gas-fired combined cycle power generating plant located in
Denver City, Texas, to EIF Mustang Holdings I, LLC. The
sale resulted in net cash proceeds of approximately
$13 million and a net gain of approximately
$12 million.
Note 8 Other Charges (Credits)
Other charges and credits included in operating expenses in the
Consolidated Statement of Operations include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
|
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
198 |
|
Impairment charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
229 |
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Fresh Start adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,220 |
) |
Legal settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
48 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
$ |
(3,322 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate Relocation Charges |
On March 16, 2004, we announced plans to implement a new
regional business strategy and structure. The new structure
called for a reorganized leadership team and a corporate
headquarters relocation to Princeton, New Jersey. As of
December 31, 2004, the transition of our corporate
headquarters is substantially complete.
For the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, we recorded
$6 million and $16 million, respectively, for total
charges of $22 million related to our corporate relocation
activities, primarily for employee severance and termination
benefits and employee related transition costs and lease
abandonment costs. These charges are classified separately in
our statement of operations, in accordance with
SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated
with Exit or Disposal Activities, or SFAS 146.
All material expenses related to the corporate relocation have
been incurred as of December 31, 2005. Lease termination
costs require that cash payments in the amount of
$2 million be made through the fourth quarter of 2006.
162
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A summary of the SFAS 146-classified expenses is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
Yet to be |
|
Expected | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
Incurred |
|
Total Charges | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
Employee related transition costs
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
Severance and termination benefits
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Lease termination costs
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total corporate relocation charges
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of the significant components of the restructuring
liability is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
Relocation | |
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
Related | |
|
Cash | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
Charges | |
|
Payments | |
|
2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
Employee related transition costs
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
Severance and termination benefits
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Lease termination costs
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, the net restructuring
liability was approximately $2 million and $4 million,
respectively, the majority of which is included in other current
liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. Charges related
to the employee related transition costs, severance and
termination benefits and lease termination costs are recorded at
our corporate level within our All Other Other
segment, in the corporate relocation charges line on the
consolidated statement of operations.
For the year ended December 31, 2005 we did not record any
reorganization item expense or income. For the year ended
December 31, 2004, we recorded a net credit of
approximately $13 million related primarily to the
settlement of obligations recorded under Fresh Start. For the
periods December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 and
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003, we incurred
approximately $2 million and $198 million,
163
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
respectively, in reorganization costs. All reorganization costs
have been incurred since we filed for bankruptcy in May 2003.
The following table provides the detail of the types of costs
incurred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional fees
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
Deferred financing costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
Pre-payment settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
Interest earned on accumulated cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
Contingent equity obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
Settlement of obligations and other gains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total reorganization items
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We review the recoverability of our long-lived assets in
accordance with the guidelines of SFAS 144. As a result of
this review, we recorded impairment charges of approximately
$6 million, $45 million and $229 million, for the
years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the period
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003,
respectively, as shown in the table below.
To determine whether an asset was impaired, we compared
asset-carrying values to total future estimated undiscounted
cash flows. If an asset was determined to be impaired based on
the cash flow testing performed, an impairment loss was recorded
to write down the asset to its fair value.
164
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Impairment charges (credits) included the following asset
impairments (realized gains) for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the period January 1,
2003 to December 5, 2003. There were no impairment charges
for the period December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
January 1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
Project Name |
|
Project Status |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
Fair Value Basis |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
Berrians I Gas Turbine Power LLC
|
|
Non-operating asset |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Sales price |
Meriden (turbine only)
|
|
Pending sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price |
Kendall
|
|
Sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized loss |
Louisiana Generating LLC
|
|
Office building and land being marketed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated market price |
New Roads Holding LLC (turbine)
|
|
Non-operating asset abandoned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected cash flows |
Devon Power LLC
|
|
Operating at a loss in 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
Projected cash flows |
Middletown Power LLC
|
|
Operating at a loss Terminated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
Projected cash flows |
Arthur Kill Power, LLC
|
|
construction project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
Projected cash flows |
Langage (UK)
|
|
Terminated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
Estimated market price/Realized gain |
Turbines
|
|
Sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
Realized gain |
Berrians Project
|
|
Terminated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
Realized loss |
TermoRio
|
|
Terminated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Realized loss |
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impairment charges
|
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
|
$ |
229 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berrians I Gas Turbine Power LLC During 2005,
we determined that an unused turbine previously acquired for a
now canceled project would be placed for sale. A letter of
intent was entered into for the sale which resulted in an
impairment of approximately $6 million, and the sale closed
during the first quarter of 2006. Berrians is included within
our Other North America segment. The balance of the Berrians
turbine is classified as a current asset held for sale on the
balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, totaling
$8 million.
Meriden During the third quarter of 2004, we
entered into a purchase and sale agreement to sell unused
turbines. As a result, we recorded an impairment charge of
$15 million. The sale is expected to close in the first
half of 2006. Meriden is included in our All Other segment under
the Other category. The balance of the Meriden turbines are
classified as current assets held for sale on the balance sheet
as of December 31, 2005, totaling $35 million.
Kendall In September 2004, we executed an
agreement to sell our 1,160 MW generating plant in Minooka,
Illinois to an affiliate of LS Power Associates, L.P and
recorded a charge of approximately $25 million related to
the impairment to realizable value. Under the terms of the
agreement, we have the right to acquire a 40% interest in the
plant within a 10-year
period for a nominal amount. Therefore, the transaction was
treated as a partial sale for accounting purposes. In December
2004 we completed the sale and received net proceeds of
$1 million, resulting in a loss on sale of approximately
$2 million and a total loss of approximately
$27 million. Kendall is included in our Other North America
segment.
Louisiana Generating LLC In January 2004, we
closed the South Central regional office in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana and offered it for sale. During the fourth quarter of
2004, we recorded a charge of
165
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
approximately $1 million related to the impairment to net
realizable value based on two offers received. The sale was
finalized during the third quarter of 2005. Louisiana Generating
is included in our South Central segment.
New Roads Holding LLC During the second
quarter of 2004, we reviewed the recoverability of our New Roads
assets pursuant to SFAS No. 144 and recorded a charge
of approximately $1 million related to the impairment to
realizable value of a turbine acquired in March 2000 from Cajun
Electric. During the third quarter of 2004, we recorded an
additional charge of approximately $1 million to write the
turbines value down to its scrap value. New Roads Holding
is included in our South Central segment.
Connecticut Facilities (Devon Power LLC and Middletown Power
LLC) As a result of regulatory developments and
changing circumstances in the second quarter of 2003, we updated
the facilities cash flow models to incorporate changes to
reflect the impact of the April 25, 2003 FERCs orders
on regional and locational pricing, and to update the estimated
impact of future locational capacity or deliverability
requirements. Based on these revised cash flow models,
management determined that the new estimates of pricing and cost
recovery levels were not projected to return sufficient revenue
to cover the fixed costs at Devon Power LLC and Middletown Power
LLC. As a consequence, during the second quarter of 2003 we
recorded approximately $64 million and $157 million as
impairment charges for Devon Power LLC and Middletown Power LLC,
respectively. In the third quarter of 2004, ISO-NE informed the
Company that it would not extend the RMR contract for Devon
units 7 and 8. As a result, both units have been placed on
deactivated reserve. Devon Power and Middletown Power are
included in our Northeast segment.
Arthur Kill Power, LLC During the third
quarter of 2003, we cancelled our plans to re-establish fuel oil
capacity at our Arthur Kill plant. This resulted in a charge of
approximately $9.0 million to write-off assets under
development. Arthur Kill Power is included in our Northeast
segment.
Langage (UK) In August 2003 we closed on the
sale of Langage to Carlton Power Limited resulting in net cash
proceeds of approximately $2 million, of which
$1 million was received in 2003 and $1 million was
received during the first quarter of 2004, and a net gain of
approximately $3 million. Langage is included in our All
Other segment under the Other International category.
Turbines In October 2003, we closed on the
sale of three turbines and related equipment. The sale resulted
in net cash proceeds of approximately $71 million and a
gain of approximately $22 million. Turbines are included in
our All Other segment under the Other category.
Berrians Project During the fourth quarter of
2003, we cancelled plans to construct the Berrians peaking
facility on the land adjacent to our Astoria facility. Berrians
was originally scheduled to commence operations in the summer of
2005; however, based on the remaining costs to complete and the
current risk profile of merchant peaking units, the construction
project was terminated. This resulted in a charge of
approximately $14 million to write off the projects
assets. Berrians is included in our Other North America segment.
TermoRio TermoRio was a green field
cogeneration project located in the state of Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. Based on the projects failure to meet certain key
milestones, we exercised our rights under the project agreements
to sell our debt and equity interests in the project to our
partner, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, or Petrobras. On
May 17, 2002, Petrobras commenced an arbitration. On
March 8, 2003, the arbitral tribunal decided most, but not
all, of the issues in our favor and awarded us approximately
US $80 million. On June 4, 2004, NRG Energy
commenced a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, seeking to enforce the arbitration award.
On February 16, 2005, a conditional settlement agreement
was signed with our former partner Petrobras, whereby Petrobras
is obligated to pay us $71 million. Such payment was
received by us at a closing held on February 25, 2005. We
had a note receivable of $57 million related to the
arbitration award. The amounts received in excess of
approximately $57 million were recorded to other income in
the first quarter of 2005. TermoRio is included in our All Other
166
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
segment under the Other International category. A
$3 million reserve related to ongoing litigation was
recorded in the fourth quarter of 2005.
We incurred $8 million of employee separation costs and
advisor fees during 2003 until we filed for bankruptcy in May
2003. Subsequent to that date we recorded all advisor fees as
reorganization costs.
During the fourth quarter of 2003, we recorded a net credit of
$3.9 billion (comprised of a $4.2 billion gain from
continuing operations and a $0.3 billion loss from
discontinued operations) in connection with fresh start
adjustments as discussed in Note 3.
Following is a summary of the significant effects of the
reorganization and Fresh Start:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
| |
Discharge of corporate level debt
|
|
$ |
5,162 |
|
Discharge of other liabilities
|
|
|
811 |
|
Establishment of creditor pool
|
|
|
(1,040 |
) |
Receivable from Xcel
|
|
|
640 |
|
Revaluation of fixed assets
|
|
|
(1,392 |
) |
Revaluation of equity investments
|
|
|
(207 |
) |
Valuation of SO(2) emission credits
|
|
|
374 |
|
Valuation of out of market contracts, net
|
|
|
(400 |
) |
Fair market valuation of debt
|
|
|
108 |
|
Valuation of pension liabilities
|
|
|
(61 |
) |
Other valuation adjustments
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total Fresh Start adjustments
|
|
|
3,895 |
|
|
Less discontinued operations
|
|
|
(325 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total Fresh Start adjustments continuing operations
|
|
$ |
4,220 |
|
|
|
|
|
During the period January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003,
we recorded $463 million of legal settlement charges which
consisted of the following. We recorded $396 million in
connection with the resolution of an arbitration claim asserted
by FirstEnergy Corp. As a result of this resolution, FirstEnergy
retained ownership of the Lake Plant Assets and received an
allowed general unsecured claim of $396 million under NRG
Energys Plan of Reorganization. In November 2003, we
settled litigation with Fortistar Capital in which Fortistar
Capital released us from all litigation claims in exchange for a
$60 million pre-petition bankruptcy claim and an
$8 million post-petition bankruptcy claim. We had
previously recorded $11 million in connection with various
legal disputes with Fortistar Capital; accordingly, we recorded
an additional $57 million during November 2003. In November
2003, we settled our dispute with Dick Corporation in connection
with Meriden Gas Turbines LLC through the payment of a general
unsecured claim and a post-petition pre-confirmation payment.
This settlement resulted in our recording an additional
liability of $8 million in November 2003.
In August 1995, we entered into a Marketing, Development and
Joint Proposing Agreement, or the Marketing Agreement, with
Cambrian Energy Development LLC, or Cambrian. Various claims
arose in
167
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
connection with the Marketing Agreement. In November 2003, we
entered into a settlement agreement with Cambrian where we
agreed to transfer our 100% interest in three gasco projects
(NEO Ft. Smith, NEO Phoenix and NEO Woodville) and our 50%
interest in two genco projects (MM Phoenix and MM Woodville) to
Cambrian. In addition, we paid approximately $2 million in
settlement of royalties incurred in connection with the
Marketing Agreement. We had previously recorded a liability for
royalties owed to Cambrian, therefore, we recorded an additional
$1 million during November 2003.
|
|
Note 9 |
Asset Retirement Obligation |
Effective January 1, 2003, we adopted SFAS 143 which
requires an entity to recognize the fair value of a liability
for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is
incurred. Upon initial recognition of a liability for an asset
retirement obligation, an entity shall capitalize an asset
retirement cost by increasing the carrying amount of the related
long-lived asset by the same amount as the liability. Over time,
the liability is accreted to its present value each period, and
the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the
related asset. Retirement obligations associated with long-lived
assets included within the scope of SFAS 143 are those for
which a legal obligation exists under enacted laws, statutes and
written or oral contracts, including obligations arising under
the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
We identified certain retirement obligations within our power
generation operations in the Northeast, South Central and
Australia regions. We also identified retirement obligations
within our All Other segment under the Other International,
Alternative Energy category and the Non-Generation category.
These asset retirement obligations are related primarily to the
future dismantlement of equipment on leased property and
environment obligations related to ash disposal site closures
and fuel storage facilities.
We have also identified conditional asset retirement obligations
for asbestos removal and disposal which are specific to certain
power generation operations. In 2005, we adopted FIN 47
which clarifies the term conditional asset retirement
obligation as used in SFAS 143. Under FIN 47, a
conditional asset retirement obligation is reasonably estimable
if (a) it is evident that the fair value of the obligation
is embodied in the acquisition price of the asset, (b) an
active market exists for the transfer of the obligation, or
(c) sufficient information exists to apply an expected
present value technique. To estimate the fair value of the
conditional asset retirement obligations, we utilize existing
information to calculate an expected present value of the future
obligations. The existing information includes engineering
estimates on the cost of asbestos removal and disposal, the
maximum future lives of the plants assuming no major
renovations, our weighted average cost of capital and future
inflation rates. We also include several probabilities in the
expected present value calculation, including major plant
renovations or dismantlement. The calculation of the expected
present value of the conditional asset retirement obligations
indicates an additional asset retirement obligation for asbestos
removal and disposal of $4 million which we recorded in the
fourth quarter of 2005. The cumulative effect adjustment of the
additional asset retirement obligation is not considered to be
material.
168
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following represents the balances of the asset retirement
obligation as of December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003,and the
additions, accretion, settlements and translation adjustments of
the asset retirement obligation for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004. The asset retirement obligation
is included in other long-term obligations in the consolidated
balance sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
|
|
Asset | |
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Alternative | |
|
Non | |
|
|
|
Retirement | |
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Australia | |
|
International | |
|
Energy | |
|
Generation | |
|
Other | |
|
Obligation | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Balance as of December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
Additions
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Accretion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2004
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
Additions
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Accretion
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Translation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to December 5, 2003, we completed our annual review
of asset retirement obligations. As part of that review we made
revisions to our previously recorded obligation in the amount of
$4 million. The revisions included identification of new
obligations as well as changes in costs required at retirement
date. As a result of adopting Fresh Start we revalued our asset
retirement obligations on December 6, 2003. We recorded an
additional asset retirement obligation of approximately
$7 million in connection with Fresh Start reporting. This
amount results from a change in the discount rate used between
adoption and Fresh Start reporting as of December 5, 2003,
equal to 500 to 600 basis points.
Inventory, which is stated at the lower of weighted average cost
or market, consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Fuel oil
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
114 |
|
Coal
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
Natural gas
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Spare parts
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
Other
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventory
|
|
$ |
260 |
|
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 11 |
Notes Receivable and Capital Lease |
Notes receivable consist primarily of fixed and variable rate
notes secured by equity interests in partnerships and joint
ventures. The notes receivable and capital lease are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Notes Receivable non-affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omega Energy, LLC, due 2004, 12.5%
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
Omega Energy II, LLC, due 2009, 11%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Elk River Great River Energy, due December 31,
2008, 4.69%
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Northbrook Texas LLC, due February 2024, 9.25%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Termo Rio (via NRGenerating Luxembourg (No. 2) S.a.r.l),
8.0%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
|
Capital Lease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VEAG Vereinigte Energiewerke AG, due August 31, 2021,
13.88% (direct financing
lease)(1)
|
|
|
379 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes receivable and capital lease non-affiliates
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
533 |
|
Reserve for uncollectible notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes receivable non-affiliates and capital lease, net
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
525 |
|
Less current maturities
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
|
$ |
440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes Receivable affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEO notes to various affiliates due primarily 2012, prime +2%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Kraftwerke Schkopau GBR, indefinite maturity date,
4.75%-7.79%(2)
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes receivable affiliates
|
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Saale Energie GmbH, or Saale, has sold 100% of its share of
capacity from the Schkopau power plant to VEAG Vereinigte
Energiewerke AG under a
25-year contract, which
is more than 83% of the useful life of the plant. The direct
financing lease receivable amount was calculated based on the
present value of the income to be received over the life of the
contract. |
|
(2) |
Saale entered into a note receivable with Kraftwerke Schkopau
GBR, a partnership between Saale and E.On Kraftwerke GmbH. The
note was used to fund Saales initial capital contribution
to the partnership and to cover project liquidity shortfalls
during construction of a power plant. The note is subject to
repayment upon the disposition of the Schkopau plant. |
170
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 12 |
Property, Plant and Equipment |
The major classes of property, plant and equipment were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
Average | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Remaining | |
|
|
Depreciable |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
Useful | |
|
|
Lives |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
Life | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
Facilities and equipment
|
|
1-42 Years |
|
$ |
3,223 |
|
|
$ |
3,199 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Land and improvements
|
|
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
|
|
Office furnishings and equipment
|
|
2-10 Years |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
3,431 |
|
|
|
3,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
|
|
(392 |
) |
|
|
(206 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,039 |
|
|
$ |
3,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 13 |
Investments Accounted for by the Equity Method |
We have investments in various international and domestic energy
projects. The equity method of accounting is applied to such
investments in affiliates, which include joint ventures and
partnerships, because the ownership structure prevents us from
exercising a controlling influence over operating and financial
policies of the projects. Under this method, equity in pretax
income or losses of domestic partnerships and, generally, in the
net income or losses of international projects, are reflected as
equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates.
A summary of certain of our more significant equity-method
investments, which were in operation at December 31, 2005,
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic | |
Name |
|
Geographic Area |
|
Interest | |
|
|
|
|
| |
MIBRAG mbH, or MIBRAG
|
|
Germany |
|
|
50% |
|
Saguaro Power Company, or Saguaro
|
|
USA |
|
|
50% |
|
Rocky Road Power
|
|
USA |
|
|
50% |
|
Enfield Energy Centre Limited, or Enfield sold on
April 1, 2005
|
|
UK |
|
|
25% |
|
West Coast Power, or WCP
|
|
USA |
|
|
50% |
|
James River
|
|
USA |
|
|
50% |
|
Gladstone Power Station, or Gladstone
|
|
Australia |
|
|
37.5% |
|
Central and Eastern European Energy Power Fund
|
|
Various |
|
|
22.2% |
|
Scudder LA Power Fund I
|
|
Latin America |
|
|
25% |
|
During 2005 we sold our equity investment in Enfield. During
2004, we sold our equity investments in Commonwealth Atlantic
Limited Partnership, four NEO investments (Four Hills LLC,
Minnesota Methane II LLC, NEO Montauk Genco LLC and NEO
Montauk Gasco LLC), Calpine Cogeneration, Loy Yang,
171
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Kondapalli, and ECKG. Summarized financial information for
investments in unconsolidated affiliates accounted for under the
equity method is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
|
Summarized Statements of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
1,300 |
|
|
$ |
2,428 |
|
|
$ |
268 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,212 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
1,101 |
|
|
|
1,966 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
|
2,036 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
199 |
|
|
$ |
462 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summarized Balance Sheets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$ |
592 |
|
|
$ |
845 |
|
|
$ |
830 |
|
|
|
$ |
784 |
|
Non-current assets
|
|
|
2,561 |
|
|
|
2,903 |
|
|
|
6,541 |
|
|
|
|
6,452 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
3,153 |
|
|
$ |
3,748 |
|
|
$ |
7,371 |
|
|
|
$ |
7,236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
1,276 |
|
|
|
|
1,216 |
|
Non-current liabilities
|
|
|
1,143 |
|
|
|
1,740 |
|
|
|
3,592 |
|
|
|
|
3,529 |
|
Equity
|
|
|
1,877 |
|
|
|
1,802 |
|
|
|
2,503 |
|
|
|
|
2,491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$ |
3,153 |
|
|
$ |
3,748 |
|
|
$ |
7,371 |
|
|
|
$ |
7,236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRGs share of equity and net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRGs share of equity
|
|
$ |
810 |
|
|
$ |
809 |
|
|
$ |
1,052 |
|
|
|
$ |
1,079 |
|
NRGs share of net income
|
|
$ |
104 |
|
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
|
$ |
171 |
|
We have ownership interests in five companies that were
considered significant as defined by applicable SEC regulations
as of December 31, 2005: MIBRAG, WCP, Saguaro, Gladstone
and Enfield. We account for our investments using the equity
method. Our carrying value of equity investments is impacted by
impairments, unrealized gains and losses on derivatives and
movements in foreign currency exchange rates as well as other
adjustments. The financial statements of MIBRAG and WCP will be
filed as separate exhibits to this
Form 10-K.
172
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
MIBRAG Summarized Financial Information |
The Company owns a 50% interest in MIBRAG. Located near Leipzig,
Germany, MIBRAG owns and manages a coal mining operation, three
lignite fueled power generation facilities and other related
businesses. Approximately 50% of the power generated by MIBRAG
is used to support its mining operations, with the remainder
sold to a German utility company. A portion of the coal from
MIBRAGs mining operation is used to fuel the power
generation facilities, but a majority of the mined coal is sold
primarily to two major customers, including Schkopau, an
affiliate of the Company. A significant portion of the sales of
MIBRAG are made pursuant to long-term coal and energy supply
contracts. The following tables summarize financial information
for MIBRAG, including interests owned by the Company and other
parties for the periods shown below:
Results of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
432 |
|
|
$ |
427 |
|
|
$ |
401 |
|
Operating income
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
Net income (pre-tax)
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
Financial Position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current assets
|
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
179 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
1,134 |
|
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
1,255 |
|
|
$ |
1,474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
21 |
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
885 |
|
|
|
1,083 |
|
Equity
|
|
|
348 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$ |
1,255 |
|
|
$ |
1,474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the period
from December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 and the
period from January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003
our equity earnings from MIBRAG were approximately
$26 million, $21 million, $0 million and
$22 million, respectively.
As discussed in Note 2, our MIBRAG equity investment will
be negatively affected by
EITF 04-6.
Currently, MIBRAG has an asset totaling
157 million, approximately $185 million, representing
the stripping costs incurred during production as of
December 31, 2005. Following adoption in the first quarter
of 2006, our investment in MIBRAG will be reduced by 50% of the
above mentioned asset, approximately $93 million, with an
offsetting charge to retained earnings.
|
|
|
West Coast Power LLC Summarized Financial
Information |
We have a 50% interest in WCP. Upon adoption of Fresh Start we
adjusted our investment in WCP to fair value as of
December 6, 2003. In accordance with APB 18, we have
reconciled the value of our investment as of December 6,
2003 to our share of WCPs partners equity. As a
result of pushing down the impact of Fresh Start to the
projects balance sheet, we determined that a contract
based intangible asset with a one year
173
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
remaining life, consisting of the value of WCPs CDWR
energy sales contract, must be established and recognized as a
basis adjustment to our share of the future earnings generated
by WCP. This adjustment reduced our equity earnings in the
amount of approximately $116 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004 until the contract expired in December
2004. Offsetting this reduction in earnings is a favorable
adjustment to reflect a lower depreciation expense resulting
from the corresponding reduced value of the projects fixed
assets from Fresh Start reporting.
During the year ended December 31, 2005 we recorded equity
earnings of $22 million for WCP after adjustments for the
reversal of $12 million project-level depreciation expense.
For the year ended December 31, 2004 we recorded equity
earnings of approximately $69 million for WCP after
adjustments for the reversal of approximately $32 million
project-level depreciation expense, offset by a decrease in
earnings related to approximately $116 million amortization
of the intangible asset for the CDWR contract. During the period
December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 we recorded
equity earnings of approximately $9 million for WCP after
adjustments for the reversal of approximately $3 million
project-level depreciation expense, offset by a decrease in
earnings related to approximately $9 million amortization
of the intangible asset for the CDWR contract. The following
table summarizes financial information for WCP, including
interests owned by us and other parties for the periods shown
below:
Results of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
301 |
|
|
$ |
726 |
|
|
$ |
53 |
|
|
$ |
643 |
|
Operating income
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
Net income (pre-tax)
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
Financial Position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current assets
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
426 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
376 |
|
|
|
394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
688 |
|
|
$ |
823 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Equity
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
736 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$ |
688 |
|
|
$ |
823 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the period
from December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 and the
period from January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003
our equity earnings from WCP were approximately
$22 million, $69 million, $9 million and
$99 million, respectively.
174
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Acquisition of Remaining 50% in WCP from Dynegy, Inc. and
sale of our 50% investment in Rocky Road Power LLC |
On December 27, 2005, we entered into purchase and sale
agreements for projects co-owned with Dynegy, Inc., or Dynegy.
Under the agreements, we will acquire Dynegys 50%
ownership interest in WCP (Generation) Holdings, Inc., and
become the sole owner of WCPs 1,808 MW of generation
in Southern California.In addition, we are selling to
Dynegy our 50% ownership interest in Rocky Road Power LLC, or
Rocky Road, a 330 MW gas-fueled, simple cycle peaking plant
located in Dundee, Illinois. Both of these transactions are
conditioned upon one another and we will pay Dynegy a net
purchase price of $160 million at closing. We will fund the
net purchase price with cash held by WCP. We anticipate closing
both transactions during the first quarter of 2006.
NRG purchased 50 percent of Saguaro in September 2001.
Located in Henderson, near Las Vegas, Nevada, the Saguaro plant
is a cogeneration plant with dual-fuel capability (natural gas
and oil) and has contracted its electricity to Nevada Power
through 2022, one steam host (Pioneer) whose contract expires in
2007 (with a negotiated renewal) and a steam off taker (Ocean
Spray), whose contract runs through 2015. Upon adoption of Fresh
Start we created a basis difference as we increased our
investment in Saguaro by approximately $31 million to
reflect fair value as of December 6, 2003. From Fresh Start
we have amortized this amount by approximately $2 million
annually based on the plants estimated remaining useful
life, recorded as a reduction in equity earnings. In accordance
with APB 18, we have reconciled the value of our investment
as of December 6, 2003 to our share of Saguaros
partners equity.
The Saguaro plant had a long-term gas supply agreement that
expired in July 2005 and the plant is now exposed to the monthly
spot gas market. At present, Saguaro cannot pass higher natural
gas costs through to its customers, and the plant is currently
experiencing negative cash flows. Due to this event and based on
forecasted prices and cash flows, we determined that we have a
permanent decline in value of our 50% interest and recorded a
write down of our equity investment in Saguaro by approximately
$27 million (see also Note 7). As such, the remaining
basis difference as of December 31, 2005 is immaterial.
For the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the period
from December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 and the
period from January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003
our equity earnings from Saguaro were approximately
$0 million, $5 million, $1 million and
$4 million, respectively.
We own a 37.5% interest in Gladstone, an unincorporated joint
venture, or UJV, which operates a 1,613 megawatt coal-fueled
power generation facility in Queensland, Australia. The power
generation facility is managed by the joint venture participants
and the facility is operated by NRG. Operating expenses incurred
in connection with the operation of the facility are funded by
each of the participants in proportion to their ownership
interests. Coal is sourced from a mining operation owned and
operated by certain joint venture partners and other investors
under a long term supply agreement. We and the joint venture
participants receive a majority of our respective share of
revenues directly from customers and are directly responsible
and liable for project related debt, all in proportion to the
ownership interests in the UJV. Power generated by the facility
is primarily sold to an adjacent aluminum smelter, with excess
power sold on the national market.
For the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the period
from December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 and the
period from January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003
our equity earnings from Gladstone were approximately
$24 million, $18 million, $1 million and
$12 million, respectively.
175
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Enfield Energy Centre Limited |
Until April 1, 2005, we owned a 25% interest in Enfield,
located in Enfield, North London, UK. Enfield owns and operates
a 396 MW, natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine
power station. Enfield sells electricity generated from the
plant in North London and the gas generated from the plant under
a long-term gas supply contract. As of April 1, 2005,
Enfield had a long-term agreement that effectively fixed the
purchase price of its gas supply. The purpose of the contract,
which was executed in August 1997 and extended through October
2014, was to mitigate the risk associated with fluctuations in
the price of gas utilized in the generation of electricity at
our facility. This contract was considered a derivative as
defined by SFAS 133, and was afforded
mark-to-market
accounting treatment. We were subject to volatility in earnings
associated with fluctuations in the market price of gas. Enfield
has the ability to consume the gas for generation, and therefore
our risk of loss associated with the contract is minimal. Given
an increase in the price of natural gas in the UK market during
the course of 2004 and 2005, we recorded mark to market gains of
approximately $12 million and $23 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2005 and for the year ended
December 31, 2004, respectively.
For the three months ended March 31, 2005, the year ended
December 31, 2004, the period from December 6, 2003 to
December 31, 2003 and the period from January 1, 2003
through December 5, 2003 our equity earnings from Enfield
were approximately $16 million, $29 million,
$0 million and $6 million, respectively.
Note 14 Intangible Assets
Upon the adoption of Fresh Start, we established certain
intangible assets for power sales agreements and plant emission
allowances. These intangible assets are being amortized over
their respective lives based on a straight-line or units of
production basis to resemble our realization of such assets. We
are also actively selling part of our emission allowances and
their respective cost is expensed when sold.
Power sale agreements are amortized as a reduction to revenue
over the terms and conditions of each contract. The weighted
average remaining amortization period is two years for the power
sale agreements. Emission allowances are amortized as additional
fuel expense based upon the actual level of emissions from the
respective plants through 2023. Aggregate amortization
recognized for the year ended December 31, 2005,
December 31, 2004 and the period December 6, 2003 to
December 31, 2003 was approximately $24 million,
$50 million and $5 million, respectively. The annual
aggregate amortization for each of the five succeeding years,
starting with 2006, is expected to approximate $14 million
in 2006, $12 million in 2007, $11 million in 2008,
$11 million in 2009 and $8 million for 2010 for both
the power sale agreements and emission allowances. The expected
annual amortization of these amounts is expected to change as we
continue to sell part of our emission allowances and as we
relieve our tax valuation allowance per the explanation below.
For the year ended December 31, 2005, we reduced our
valuation allowance by approximately $17 million and
reduced certain deferred tax assets by $9 million. Both
movements were offset to our intangible assets at our
wholly-owned subsidiaries, in accordance with
SOP 90-7. For the
year ended December 31, 2004, we reduced our deferred tax
valuation allowance by $64 million and recorded a
corresponding reduction of $55 million related to our
intangible assets at our wholly-owned subsidiaries. The
remaining $9 million was recorded as a reduction to our
intangible asset related to our equity investments in West Coast
Power. In accordance with
SOP 90-7, any
future income tax benefits realized from reducing the valuation
allowance should first reduce intangible assets until exhausted,
and thereafter be recorded as a direct addition to paid-in
capital. During 2004, Intangible assets were also reduced by
approximately $33 million consisting of an approximate
$11 million reduction in connection with the recognition of
certain tax credits to be claimed on our New York state
franchise tax return and approximately $22 million of
adjustments related to a
true-up of certain
other tax evaluations and the recognition of Itiquira Energetica
S.A. preferred stock as debt for U.S. generally accepted
accounting purposes.
176
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Intangible assets consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Sale | |
|
Emission | |
|
|
|
|
Agreements | |
|
Allowances | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Original balance as of December 6, 2003
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
373 |
|
|
$ |
437 |
|
Amortization
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2003
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
432 |
|
Tax valuation adjustments
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
Other valuation adjustments
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
Amortization
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2004
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
274 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
Tax valuation adjustments
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
Other valuation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Sale of emission credits to
3rd parties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
Amortization
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
250 |
|
|
$ |
257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We had intangible assets that were amortized and consisted of
service contracts. Aggregate amortization expense for the period
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003 was approximately
$4 million.
Note 15 Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities
SFAS No. 133 Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, or
SFAS No. 133, as amended, requires us to recognize all
derivative instruments on the balance sheet as either assets or
liabilities and measure them at fair value each reporting
period. If certain conditions are met, we may be able to
designate our derivatives as cash flow hedges and defer the
effective portion of the change in fair value of the derivatives
in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, or OCI and
subsequently recognize in earnings when the hedged items impact
income. The ineffective portion of a cash flow hedge is
immediately recognized in income.
For derivatives designated as hedges of the fair value of assets
or liabilities, the changes in fair value of both the
derivatives and the hedged items are recorded in current
earnings. The ineffective portion of a hedging derivative
instruments change in fair values will be immediately
recognized in earnings.
For derivatives that are neither designated as cash flow hedges
or do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the changes in
the fair value will be immediately recognized in earnings. Under
the guidelines established by SFAS No. 133, as
amended, certain derivative instruments may qualify for the
normal purchase and sale exception and are therefore exempt from
fair value accounting treatment. SFAS No. 133 applies
to our energy related commodity contracts, interest rate swaps
and foreign exchange contracts.
As the Company engages principally in the trading and marketing
of its generation assets, most of our commercial activities
qualify for hedge accounting under the requirements of
SFAS No. 133. In order to so qualify, the physical
generation and sale of electricity must be highly probable at
inception of the trade and throughout the period it is held, as
is the case with our base-load coal plants. For this reason,
trades in support of the companys peaking units will not
generally qualify for hedge accounting treatment and any changes
in fair value are likely to be reflected on a
mark-to-market basis in
the statement of operations. The majority of trades in support
of our base-load coal units will normally qualify for hedge
accounting treatment and any fair value movements will be
reflected in the balance sheet as part of OCI.
177
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Derivative Financial Instruments |
|
|
|
Energy Related Commodities |
As part of our risk management activities, we manage the
commodity price risk associated with our competitive supply
activities and the price risk associated with power sales from
our electric generation facilities. In doing so, we may enter
into a variety of derivative and non-derivative instruments,
including but not limited to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Forward contracts, which commit us to purchase or sell energy
commodities in the future. |
|
|
|
Futures contracts, which are exchange-traded standardized
commitments to purchase or sell a commodity or financial
instrument. |
|
|
|
Swap agreements, which require payments to or from
counter-parties based upon the differential between two prices
for a predetermined contractual (notional) quantity. |
|
|
|
Option contracts, which convey the right to buy or sell a
commodity, financial instrument, or index at a predetermined
price. |
The objectives for entering into such hedges include:
|
|
|
|
|
Fixing the price for a portion of anticipated future electricity
sales at a level that provides an acceptable return on our
electric generation operations. |
|
|
|
Fixing the price of a portion of anticipated fuel purchases for
the operation of our power plants. |
|
|
|
Fixing the price of a portion of anticipated energy purchases to
supply our load-serving customers. |
Ineffectiveness will result from a difference in the relative
price movements between a financial transaction and the
underlying physical pricing point. If this difference is large
enough, it will cause an entity to discontinue the use of hedge
accounting.
At December 31, 2005 we had hedge and non-hedge energy
related commodities financial instruments extending through
December 2026. At December 31, 2005 our derivative assets
and liabilities consisted primarily of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Forward and financial contracts for the sale of electricity and
related products economically hedging our generation assets
forecasted output through 2008. |
|
|
|
Forward and financial contracts for the purchase of fuel
commodities relating to the forecasted usage of our generation
assets into 2006. |
Also, at December 31, 2005 we had other energy related
contracts that did not qualify as derivatives under the
guidelines established by SFAS No. 133, or we elected
to apply the normal purchase and sale exception as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Coal purchase contracts extending through 2009 designated as
normal purchases and disclosed as part of our contractual cash
obligations. (See Note 25 Commitments and Contingencies). |
|
|
|
Natural gas transportation and storage agreements these
contracts are not derivatives and are disclosed as part of our
contractual cash obligations. (See Note 25 Commitments and
Contingencies). |
|
|
|
Load-following forward electric sales contracts extending
through 2026 (these contracts are not considered derivatives). |
For the year ended December 31, 2005, the impact of hedge
ineffectiveness associated with financial forward contracted
electric sales was immaterial. No ineffectiveness was recognized
on commodity cash flow
178
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
hedges during the year ended December 31, 2004, the periods
December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003.
Our pre-tax earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005
and 2004, the period December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003, and the period January 1, 2003
through December 5, 2003 were affected by an unrealized
loss of $143 million, an unrealized gain of
$81 million, an unrealized loss of $1 million and an
unrealized gain of $54 million respectively, associated
with changes in the fair value of energy related derivative
instruments not accounted for as hedges in accordance with
SFAS No. 133.
During the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, we
reclassified losses of $132 million and $3 million,
respectively, from OCI to current period earnings. During the
period December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 no
gains or losses were reclassified from OCI to current-period
earnings. Our plan of reorganization became effective
December 5, 2003 and, accordingly, we made adjustments for
Fresh Start in accordance with
SOP 90-7. These
Fresh Start adjustments resulted in a write-off of net gains
recorded in OCI of $61 million on energy related derivative
instruments accounted for as hedges. During the period
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003, we
reclassified gains of $113 million from OCI to current
period earnings. We expect to reclassify an additional
$208 million of deferred losses to earnings during the next
twelve months on energy related derivative instruments accounted
for as hedges.
To manage interest rate risk, we have entered into interest rate
swap agreements that fix the interest payments or the fair value
of selected debt issuances. The qualifying swap agreements are
accounted for as cash flow or fair value hedges. The effective
portion of the cash flow hedges cumulative gains/losses
are reported as a component of OCI in stockholders equity.
These gains/losses are recognized in earnings as the hedged
interest expense is incurred. The reclassification from OCI is
included on the same line of the statement of operations in
which the hedged item appears. The entire amount of the change
in fair value hedges is recorded in the statement of operations
along with the change in value of the hedged item. At
December 31, 2005 our consolidating subsidiaries had
various interest-rate swap agreements extending through June
2019 with combined notional amounts of $1.2 billion. If
these swaps had been terminated at December 31, 2005 we
would have owed the counter-parties $33 million.
At December 31, 2005 all of our interest rate swap
arrangements have been designated as either cash flow or fair
value hedges.
No ineffectiveness was recognized on interest rate swaps that
qualify as hedges during the year ended December 31, 2005
and 2004, the periods December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003 and January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003.
Our pre-tax earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005
were not affected by changes in the fair value of interest rate
derivative instruments not accounted for as hedges in accordance
with SFAS No. 133. Our pre-tax earnings for the year
ended December 31, 2004 were increased by an unrealized
gain of less than a million dollars associated with changes in
the fair value of interest rate derivative instruments not
accounted for as hedges in accordance with
SFAS No. 133. One of these instruments was a
$400 million swap to pay fixed, which was not designated as
a hedge of the expected cash flows at March 31, 2004. As of
April 1, 2004, this instrument was designated as a cash
flow hedge under SFAS No. 133. As a result, changes in
value subsequent to April 1, 2004 are deferred and recorded
as part of OCI.
Our pre-tax earnings for the period December 6, 2003
through December 31, 2003 and the period January 1,
2003 through December 5, 2003 were increased by an
unrealized gain of $2 million and decreased by an
unrealized loss of $15 million, respectively, associated
with changes in the fair value of interest rate derivative
instruments not accounted for as hedges in accordance with
SFAS No. 133.
179
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During the year ended December 31, 2005, we reclassified
gains of $2 million from OCI to current period earnings.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, we reclassified
losses of $5 million from OCI to current period earnings.
During the periods December 6, 2003 through
December 31, 2003 and January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003, losses of $0 and $30 million,
respectively, were reclassified from OCI to current- period
earnings. Our plan of reorganization became effective
December 5, 2003 and, accordingly, we made adjustments for
Fresh Start in accordance with
SOP 90-7. These
Fresh Start adjustments resulted in a write-off of net losses
recorded in OCI of $66 million on interest rate swaps
accounted for as hedges. We expect to reclassify $2 million
of deferred gains to earnings during the next twelve months
associated with interest rate swaps accounted for as hedges.
|
|
|
Foreign Currency Exchange Rates |
To preserve the U.S. dollar value of projected foreign
currency cash flows, we may hedge, or protect those cash flows
if appropriate foreign hedging instruments are available. As of
December 31, 2005, the results of any outstanding foreign
currency exchange contracts were immaterial to our financial
results.
No ineffectiveness occurred on foreign currency cash flow hedges
during the year ended December 31, 2004, the periods
December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 or
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003.
During the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the
period December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003, our
pre-tax earnings were not affected by any gain or loss
associated with foreign currency hedging instruments not
accounted for as hedges in accordance with
SFAS No. 133.
During the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the
periods December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and
January 1, 2003 through December 5, 2003, no amounts
were reclassified from OCI to current period earnings. Our plan
of reorganization became effective December 5, 2003 and,
accordingly, we made adjustments for Fresh Start in accordance
with SOP 90-7.
These Fresh Start adjustments resulted in a write-off of net
losses recorded in OCI of less than one million dollars on
foreign currency swaps accounted for as hedges. Any amounts we
expect to reclassify to earnings during the next twelve months
on foreign currency swaps accounted for as hedges are immaterial
to our results.
|
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income |
The following table summarizes the effects of
SFAS No. 133, as amended, on our other comprehensive
income balance attributable to hedged derivatives for the year
ended December 31, 2005 before income taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest | |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate | |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
Unwound from OCI during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
due to unwinding of previously deferred amounts
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
Mark to market of hedge contracts
|
|
|
(341 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(333 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
(204 |
) |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(196 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gains/(Losses) expected to unwind from OCI during next
12 months
|
|
$ |
(208 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(206 |
) |
During the year ended December 31, 2005, losses of
approximately $130 million were reclassified from OCI to
current period earnings due to the unwinding of previously
deferred amounts. These amounts are
180
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
recorded on the same line in the statement of operations in
which the hedged items are recorded. Also during the year ended
December 31, 2005, we recorded a loss in OCI of
$333 million related to changes in the fair values of
derivatives accounted for as hedges. The net balance in OCI
relating to SFAS No. 133 as of December 31, 2005
was an unrecognized loss of approximately $196 million. We
expect $206 million of deferred net losses on derivative
instruments accumulated in OCI to be recognized in earnings
during the next twelve months.
The following table summarizes the effects of
SFAS No. 133, as amended, on our other comprehensive
income balance attributable to hedged derivatives for the year
ended December 31, 2004 before income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest | |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate | |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
Unwound from OCI during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
due to unwinding of previously deferred amounts
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
Mark to market of hedge contracts
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2004, losses of
approximately $8 million were reclassified from OCI to
current period earnings due to the unwinding of previously
deferred amounts. These amounts are recorded on the same line in
the statement of operations in which the hedged items are
recorded. Also during the year ended December 31, 2004, we
recorded a loss in OCI of less than $1 million related to
changes in the fair values of derivatives accounted for as
hedges. The net balance in OCI relating to
SFAS No. 133 as of December 31, 2004 was an
unrecognized gain of approximately $7 million.
The following table summarizes the effects of
SFAS No. 133, as amended, on our other comprehensive
income balance attributable to hedged derivatives for the period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 before income
taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest | |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate | |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Accumulated OCI balance at December 6, 2003
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Unwound from OCI during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
due to unwinding of previously deferred amounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark to market of hedge contracts
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the period ended December 31, 2003, we recorded a
loss in OCI of approximately $1 million related to changes
in the fair values of derivatives accounted for as hedges. The
net balance in OCI relating to SFAS No. 133, as
amended, as of December 31, 2003 was an unrecognized loss
of approximately $1 million.
181
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes the effects of
SFAS No. 133, as amended, on our other comprehensive
income balance attributable to hedged derivatives for the period
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003 before income
taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest | |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate | |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2002
|
|
$ |
130 |
|
|
$ |
(103 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
Unwound from OCI during period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
due to forecasted transactions probable of no longer
occurring
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
due to unwinding of previously deferred amounts
|
|
|
(113 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(115 |
) |
|
Mark to market of hedge contracts
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated OCI balance at December 5, 2003
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
due to Fresh Start reporting write-off
|
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated OCI balance at December 6, 2003
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the period ended December 5, 2003, we reclassified
losses of $32 million from OCI to current-period earnings
as a result of the discontinuance of cash flow hedges because it
is probable that the original forecasted transactions will not
occur by the end of the originally specified time period.
Additionally, gains of $115 million were reclassified from
OCI to current period earnings during the period ended
December 5, 2003 due to the unwinding of previously
deferred amounts. These amounts are recorded on the same line in
the statement of operations in which the hedged items are
recorded. Also during the period ended December 5, 2003, we
recorded a gain in OCI of approximately $51 million related
to changes in the fair values of derivatives accounted for as
hedges. Our plan of reorganization became effective
December 5, 2003 and, accordingly, we made adjustments for
Fresh Start in accordance with
SOP 90-7. These
Fresh Start adjustments resulted in a write-off of net losses
recorded in OCI of $5 million.
The following tables summarize the pre-tax effects of non-hedge
derivatives and derivatives that no longer qualify as hedges on
our statement of operations for the year ended December 31,
2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Revenue from majority-owned subsidiaries
|
|
$ |
(145 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(145 |
) |
Cost of operations
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Statement of Operations impact before tax
|
|
$ |
(143 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(143 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
182
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following tables summarize the pre-tax effects of non-hedge
derivatives and derivatives that no longer qualify as hedges on
our statement of operations for the year ended December 31,
2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Revenue from majority-owned subsidiaries
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
Cost of operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Statement of Operations impact before tax
|
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following tables summarize the pre-tax effects of non-hedge
derivatives and derivatives that no longer qualify as hedges on
our statement of operations for the period from December 6,
2003 through December 31, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest | |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate | |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Revenue from majority-owned subsidiaries
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
Cost of operations
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Statement of Operations impact before tax
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following tables summarize the pre-tax effects of non-hedge
derivatives and derivatives that no longer qualify as hedges on
our statement of operations for the period from January 1,
2003 through December 5, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Energy | |
|
Interest | |
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Commodities | |
|
Rate | |
|
Currency |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Gains/(losses) in millions) | |
Revenue from majority-owned subsidiaries
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
Cost of operations
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Statement of Operations impact before tax
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
183
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Note 16 Other Bankruptcy Settlements
A principal component of our plan of reorganization is a
settlement with Xcel Energy in which Xcel Energy agreed to make
a contribution consisting of cash (and, under certain
circumstances, its stock) in the aggregate amount of up to
$640 million to be paid in three separate installments
following the effective date of our plan of reorganization, that
was received during 2004. The Xcel Energy settlement agreement
resolves any and all claims existing between Xcel Energy and us
and/or our creditors and, in exchange for the Xcel Energy
contribution, Xcel Energy received a complete release of claims
from us and our creditors, except for a limited number of
creditors who have preserved their claims as set forth in the
confirmation order entered on November 24, 2003. We used
the proceeds from the Xcel Energy settlement to pay off our
creditor pool obligation as of December 31, 2004.
In addition, our other bankruptcy settlement obligation as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004 was $3 million and
$6 million, respectively. This obligation relates to the
allowed claims against NRG Energy related to our Pike
facilities. See Note 25 NRG FinCo Settlement.
The net change in the balance of $3 million reflects the
sale of certain of these assets, the proceeds of which were paid
to the FinCo lenders.
Note 17 Debt and Capital Leases
Long-term debt and capital leases consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value | |
|
|
|
Fair Value | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal | |
|
Adjustment | |
|
Principal | |
|
Adjustment | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
Stated | |
|
Effective | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Rate | |
|
Rate | |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
(In millions) | |
NRG Recourse Debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRG Energy 2nd priority senior notes, due December 15,
2013(3)(4)
|
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
$ |
1,080 |
|
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
1,725 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
NRG Amended Credit Facility, due December 24, 2011
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800 |
|
|
|
|
|
NRG Promissory Note, Xcel Energy, due June 5, 2006
|
|
|
3.00 |
|
|
|
9.00 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
NRG Project-Level, Non-Recourse Debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRG Peaker Finance Co. LLC, due June 2019
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
L+3.5 |
(2) |
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
(64 |
) |
Flinders Power Finance Pty, due September 2012
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
NRG Energy Center Minneapolis LLC, Senior secured notes, due
2013 and 2017, 7.12%-7.31%
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
L+2 |
(2) |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Camas Power Boiler LP, unsecured term loan, due June 2007
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
L+2 |
(2) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Camas Power Boiler LP, revenue bonds, due August 2007
|
|
|
3.38 |
|
|
|
L+2 |
(2) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Itiquira Energetica S.A., due December 2013
|
|
|
12.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Itiquira Energetica S.A., due January 2012
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Capital leases:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saale Energie GmbH, Schkopau capital lease, due 2021
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,740 |
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
3,523 |
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
Less current maturities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
508 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,632 |
|
|
$ |
(51 |
) |
|
$ |
3,015 |
|
|
$ |
(42 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Distinguishes debt with various interest rates. |
|
(2) |
L+ equals LIBOR plus x% |
184
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(3) |
Fair value adjustment as of December 31, 2004 and
December 31, 2005 reflects $16 million reduction and
$20 million reduction, respectively, for an interest rate
swap. In addition, the balances as of December 31, 2004 and
December 31, 2005 reflect unamortized bond premium of
$26 million and $14 million, respectively. |
|
(4) |
$645 million in bonds have been redeemed or repurchased and
retired in 2005. |
As a result of adopting Fresh Start on December 6, 2003,
the fair value of long-term debt was calculated using the
indicated effective interest rates which approximate market
rates. The fair value adjustments for these notes and capital
leases are amortized into interest expense using the effective
interest rate method. A fair value adjustment was not necessary
for the senior notes and the credit facility as both of these
obligations were entered into subsequent to Fresh Start. For
those notes and capital leases where market pricing was not
available, we used carrying amounts, which we believe
approximated the market values as of December 6, 2003.
As of December 31, 2005, we have timely made scheduled
payments on interest and/or principal on all of our recourse
debt and were not in default under any of our related recourse
debt instruments. Additionally, we are not in default on any
obligations to post collateral.
On December 23, 2003, we issued $1.25 billion in 8%
Second Priority Notes, due and payable on December 15,
2013. On January 28, 2004, we issued an additional
$475.0 million in Second Priority Notes, under the same
terms and indenture as our December 23, 2003 offering.
When we issued the Second Priority Senior Secured Notes in
December 2003, we entered into a Registration Rights Agreement
with the purchasers of the Notes. Under the Registration Rights
Agreement, we were required to file a Registration Statement
with the SEC by May 21, 2004 (150 days after the
issuance of the Notes) to permit the bonds to be publicly
traded. When we did not meet this deadline, we were required to
accrue liquidated damages, starting May 22, 2004 until the
exchange was executed, which happened on June 14, 2005. In
2005, we made payments for liquidated damages totaling
approximately $7 million. Accrued but unpaid liquidated
damages were $0 and approximately $1 million as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
During the first quarter of 2005, we used existing cash to
purchase, at market prices, approximately $41 million in
face value of our Second Priority Notes. These notes were
subsequently retired. On February 4, 2005, we redeemed
$375 million in Second Priority Notes. At the same time, we
paid $30 million for the early redemption premium,
approximately $4 million in accrued but unpaid interest and
$0.4 million in accrued but unpaid liquidated damages on
the redeemed notes. On September 12, 2005, we redeemed
approximately $229 million in Second Priority Notes and
paid approximately $18 million for the early redemption
premium and $4 million in accrued but unpaid interest.
On December 15, 2005, we commenced a tender offer for all
the outstanding Second Priority Notes. On December 30, 2005
we amended the indenture relating to the Second Priority Notes
to remove many covenant restrictions, including the incurrence
of additional indebtedness, having received the necessary
consents from holders of the Second Priority Notes. Those
holders who validly tendered their Second Priority Notes by
February 2, 2006 were eligible to receive the tender offer
consideration. On February 2, 2006 we closed our offer to
purchase all outstanding Second Priority Notes. All but
approximately $0.4 million aggregate principal amount of
Second Priority Notes were tendered in such offer. The same day,
we effected a covenant defeasance of our remaining Second
Priority Notes by placing approximately $0.5 million in
escrow with the trustee of the Second Priority Notes for payment
in full on amounts due with respect to the non-tendered notes
through the earliest redemption date, December 15, 2008. As
a result of the defeasement, liens held by the remaining holders
were released and all covenant obligations under these notes
were extinguished; however, the subsidiary guarantees supporting
our obligations under the Second Priority Notes remain.
185
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Second Priority Notes were refinanced on February 2,
2006 with new Senior Unsecured Notes which are described in
Note 34 Subsequent Events. As of
December 31, 2005 and March 3, 2006, we had
$1.08 billion and $0 in Second Priority Notes outstanding,
respectively.
The Second Priority Notes were general obligations of ours. They
were secured on a second-priority basis by security interests in
all assets of ours, with certain exceptions, subject to the
liens securing our obligations under the Amended Credit
Agreement (described below) and any other priority lien debt.
The notes were effectively subordinated to our obligations under
the Amended Credit Facility and any other priority lien
obligation. The Second Priority Notes were senior in right of
payment to any future subordinated indebtedness. Interest on the
Second Priority Notes accrued at the rate of 8.0% per annum
and was payable semi-annually in arrears on June 15 and
December 15, commencing on June 15, 2004. Accrued but
unpaid interest was approximately $4 million and
$6 million as of December 31, 2005 and 2004,
respectively.
As of December 31, 2005, we had an interest rate swap in
place to exchange fixed-rate interest payments for floating-rate
interest payments. This swap agreement became effective
March 26, 2004 and terminates December 15, 2013. The
swap agreement has provisions for early termination that are
linked to any prepayment of the Second Priority Notes. As of
February 25, 2006, this swap agreement remains outstanding.
Under the agreement, we agree to pay semi-annually in arrears,
commencing June 15, 2004, a floating interest rate on a
notional amount of $400 million, and receive semi-annually
in arrears a fixed interest rate payment on the same notional
amount. The floating interest rate is based upon six-month LIBOR
plus a spread. Depending on market interest rates, we or the
swap counter-party may be required to post collateral on a daily
basis in support of this swap, to the benefit of the other
party. On December 31, 2005 and as of March 3, 2006,
we had approximately $5 million and $13 million in
collateral posted.
On December 23, 2003 we and PMI entered into a Credit
Facility for up to $1.45 billion with Credit Suisse, as
Administrative Agent, Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as
Syndication Agent and a group of lenders. The Credit Facility
was amended on December 24, 2004 to consist of a
$450 million senior secured term loan facility maturing
December 24, 2011, a $350 million funded letter of
credit facility maturing December 24, 2011, and a revolving
credit facility in an amount up to $150 million, maturing
December 24, 2007 (the Amended Credit
Facility). The Amended Credit Facility was further amended
on August 5 and December 27, 2005 to remove certain
covenants restricting the incurrence and repayment of
indebtedness. The balance outstanding under this facility was
approximately $796 million as of December 31, 2005.
Other expenses include commitment fees on the undrawn portion of
the revolving credit facility, participation fees for the
credit-linked deposit and other fees.
As of December 31, 2005, the $350 million letter of
credit facility was fully funded and reflected as a funded
letter of credit on the December 31, 2005 balance sheet. As
of December 31, 2005, approximately $312 million in
letters of credit had been issued under this facility, leaving
approximately $38 million available for future issuances.
Most of these letters of credit are issued in support of our
obligations to perform under commodity agreements, financing or
other arrangements. These letters of credit expire within one
year of issuance, and it is not unusual for us to renew many of
them on similar terms.
On September 22 and 23, 2005, we borrowed $80 million
and $40 million, respectively, under our revolving credit
facility to support working capital obligations. These
borrowings were repaid on September 26 and October 26,
2005. As of December 31, 2005, we had no borrowings
outstanding under the revolving credit facility.
On January 31, 2006, we repaid the outstanding principal
balance of approximately $446 million, along with accrued
but unpaid interest of approximately $2 million, under the
term loan facility and terminated that facility. On
February 2, 2006, we paid accrued but unpaid fees on our
revolving credit facility and our funded letter of credit
facility, and terminated those facilities. The facilities were
replaced by new financing arrangements as of February 2,
2006. An interim arrangement has been made with Credit Suisse,
such that
186
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
letters of credit issued under the Amended Credit Facility will
be retained at Credit Suisse until they are transferred to the
letter of credit facility under the New Credit Agreement. In
lieu of credit-linked deposits, we have issued to the benefit of
Credit Suisse a letter of credit under our new funded letter of
credit facility. The new credit facilities are described in
Note 34 Subsequent Events.
The Amended Credit Facility was secured by, among other things,
first-priority perfected security interests in all of the
property and assets owned at any time or acquired by us and our
subsidiaries, other than the property and assets of certain
excluded project subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries and certain
other subsidiaries, with some exceptions. The Amended Credit
Facility bore interest at an interest rate of 1.875% over LIBOR,
which was 4.39% as of December 31, 2005. As of
December 31, 2005, we had an interest rate swap in place to
hedge against fluctuations in floating interest rates. The swap
agreement became effective March 26, 2004 and terminates
March 31, 2006. Under the agreement, we agree to pay
quarterly a fixed-rate interest payment on a notional amount of
$400 million, commencing on March 31, 2004, and
receive quarterly a floating-rate interest rate payment on the
same notional amount. The floating rate is based upon
three-month LIBOR, subject to a floor.
On December 5, 2003, we entered into a $10 million
promissory note with Xcel Energy. The note accrues interest at a
rate of 3% per year, payable quarterly in arrears. All
principal is due at maturity on June 5, 2006.
See Note 34 Subsequent Events for information
related to recent financing activities related to the
acquisition of Texas Genco.
Financing commitments As discussed in
Note 34, we financed the Acquisition through a combination
of a senior secured credit facility, unsecured high yield notes
and the sale of common and preferred equity securities in the
public markets. As of December 31, 2005 we had received a
commitment letter from Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., or
Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., or
Citigroup, to provide us with up to $4.8 billion in senior
secured debt financing, including up to $3.2 billion under
a senior first priority term loan facility, up to
$600 million under a senior first priority secured
revolving credit facility and up to $1 billion under a
senior first priority secured synthetic letter of credit
facility. The commitment letter further provided for up to
$5.1 billion in bridge financing to fund all necessary
amounts not provided for under the senior secured debt
financing. This commitment letter was necessary if for some
reason any of the planned financings were unavailable at the
time of the closing. The commitment letter was subject to
customary conditions to consummation, including the absence of
any event or circumstance that would have a material adverse
effect on the business, assets, properties, liabilities,
condition (financial or otherwise) or results of operations,
taken as a whole, of Texas Genco, or Texas Genco and NRG
combined, since June 30, 2005. During the fourth quarter of
2005 we paid a fee of approximately $45 million for this
commitment and were amortizing it over the commitment period.
However, as all the financings have been completed without
utilizing this commitment letter, we have expensed the remaining
amount subsequent to the completion of the financings and
Acquisition, during February of 2006.
Project Financings
The following are descriptions of certain indebtedness of
NRGs project subsidiaries that remain outstanding on
December 31, 2005. The indebtedness described below is
non-recourse to NRG, unless otherwise described.
In June 2002, NRG Peaker Financing LLC, or Peakers, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary, issued $325 million in floating
rate bonds due June 2019. Peakers subsequently swapped such
floating rate debt for fixed rate debt at an all-in cost of
6.67% per annum. Principal, interest, and swap payments are
guaranteed by XL Capital Assurance, or XLCA, through a financial
guaranty insurance policy. Such notes are also secured
187
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
by, among other things, substantially all of the assets of and
membership interests in Bayou Cove Peaking Power LLC, Big Cajun
I Peaking Power LLC, NRG Sterlington Power LLC, NRG Rockford
LLC, NRG Rockford II LLC and NRG Rockford Equipment LLC
(all subsidiaries of NRG). As of December 31, 2005,
approximately $297 million in principal remained
outstanding on these bonds. In January 2004, terms of the
financing arrangement were restructured, at which time we issued
approximately $36 million letter of credit, under our
corporate funded letter of credit facility to the Peakers
Collateral Agent. The letter of credit may be drawn if the
project is unable to meet principal or interest payments. There
are no provisions requiring us to replenish the letter of credit
if it is drawn.
In February 2005, NRG Flinders amended its debt facility of
approximately AUD 279 million (approximately
US $219 million) in floating-rate debt. The amendment
extended the maturity to February 2017, reduced borrowing costs
and reserve requirements, reduced debt service coverage ratios,
removed mandatory cash sharing arrangements, and made other
minor modifications to terms and conditions. The facility
includes an AUD 20 million (approximately
US $15 million) working capital and performance bond
facility, under which approximately AUD 12 million
(approximately US $9 million) in performance bonds and
letters of credit have been issued as of December 31, 2005.
An interim arrangement to indemnify the Australia New Zealand
Bank, or ANZ, of up to approximately AUD 16 million was
terminated on May 17, 2005. NRG Flinders is required to
maintain interest-rate hedging contracts on a rolling
5-year basis at a
minimum level of 60% of principal outstanding. During the year,
Flinders made approximately AUD 61 million optional
prepayments, approximately AUD 18 million of mandatory
repayments and AUD 61 million of re-borrowings. As of
December 31, 2005, AUD 241 million (approximately
US $177 million) was outstanding.
NRG Thermal LLC, or NRG Thermal, has two subsidiaries with
outstanding long-term debt. Such indebtedness is secured
principally by the subsidiaries long-term assets and is
guaranteed by NRG Thermal and cross-collateralized
by NRG Thermals ownership interests in all of its
subsidiaries. In July 2002, NRG Energy Center Minneapolis LLC
issued $55 million of 7.25% Series A notes due August
2017, of which approximately $48 million remained
outstanding as of December 31, 2005; $20 million of
7.12% Series B notes due August 2017, of which
approximately $17 million remained outstanding as of
December 31, 2005; and in August 1993, NRG Energy Center
Minneapolis LLC issued $84 million of 7.31% senior
secured notes due June 2013, of which approximately
$46 million remained outstanding as of December 31,
2005. NRG Energy Center San Francisco LLC has issued $360
thousand of 7.63% senior secured term notes due September
2008, of which approximately $0.1 million remained
outstanding at December 31, 2005.
In November 1990, Clark County, Washington issued
$15 million in aggregate principal amount of 7.2% fixed
interest Series A tax-exempt bonds due August 15, 2007
to fund the construction of the Camas project. The bonds were
re-marketed with a 4.65% interest rate in August 1997 and again
at a 3.375% interest rate in August 2002. This facility,
pursuant to the indenture, can no longer be re-marketed. As of
December 31, 2005, approximately $3 million remains
outstanding. In 1997, Camas also acquired approximately
$20 million floating-rate bank loan from Fort James
Corporation, maturing in June 2007. The principal outstanding on
this facility was approximately $4 million as of
December 31, 2005.
188
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
On July 15, 2004, Itiquira Energetica S. A., a
majority-owned subsidiary of ours, executed a long-term
financing arrangement with União de Bancos Brasilieros
S.A., or Unibanco, for a 55 million Brazilian Reals term
loan maturing in January 2012. The facility bears a floating
interest rate and amortizes on a schedule that is indexed to
certain foreign exchange rates. The principal obligation as of
December 31, 2005 was approximately $19 million.
Eletrobrãs owns preferred shares in Itiquira, which for
U.S. GAAP purposes are reflected as debt. The preferred
shares accrue cumulative dividends of 12% per year, payable
only at such time Itiquira has sufficient retained profits or
reserves. The balance at December 31, 2005 was
approximately $30 million.
Saale Energie GmbH, or SEG, an NRG subsidiary, has a 41.9%
participation in the Schkopau Power Plant, or Schkopau, through
our interest in the Kraftwerke Schkopau GbR, KSGbR, partnership.
Under the terms of a Use and Benefit fee Agreement, SEG and the
other partner to the project, E.ON Kraftwerke GmbH, are required
to fund debt service and certain other costs resulting from the
construction and financing of Schkopau. The Use and Benefit Fee
Agreement is treated as a capital lease under US GAAP. Calls for
funds are made to the partners based on their participation
interest as cash is needed. The KSGbR issued debt to fund
Schkopau pursuant to multiple facilities totaling approximately
887 million
(approximately US $1.2 billion). As of
December 31, 2005, approximately
362 million
(approximately US $428 million) remained outstanding
at Schkopau. Interest on the individual loans accrues at fixed
rates averaging 5.68% per annum, with maturities occurring
between years 2006 and 2015. The lenders to the project rely
almost exclusively on the creditworthiness of E.ON Kraftwerke
GmbH. SEG remains liable to the lenders as a partner in KSGbR,
but there is no recourse to NRG. As of December 31, 2005
the capital lease obligation at SEG was approximately
$214 million.
Consolidated annual maturities and future minimum lease
payments:
Annual maturities of long-term debt and capital leases for the
years ending after December 31, 2005 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2006
|
|
$ |
108 |
|
2007
|
|
|
82 |
|
2008
|
|
|
66 |
|
2009
|
|
|
65 |
|
2010
|
|
|
71 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
2,348 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
2,740 |
|
|
|
|
|
189
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Future minimum lease payments for capital leases included above
at December 31, 2005 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
2006
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
2007
|
|
|
48 |
|
2008
|
|
|
42 |
|
2009
|
|
|
33 |
|
2010
|
|
|
19 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum obligations
|
|
|
406 |
|
Interest
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
|
|
Present value of minimum obligations
|
|
|
214 |
|
Current portion
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term obligations
|
|
$ |
153 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note 18 Capital Structure
In connection with the consummation of our reorganization, on
December 5, 2003, all shares of our old common stock were
canceled and 100 million shares of new common stock of NRG
were distributed pursuant to such plan in accordance with
Section 1145 of the bankruptcy code to the holders of
certain classes of claims. We received no proceeds from such
issuance. A certain number of shares of common stock were issued
and placed in the Disputed Claims Reserve for distribution to
holders of disputed claims as such claims are resolved or
settled. . In the event our disputed claims reserve is
inadequate, it is possible we would have to issue additional
shares of our common stock to satisfy such pre-petition claims
or contribute additional cash proceeds.
Our authorized common stock consists of 500 million shares
of NRG common stock. Common stock shares issued as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004 were 100,048,676 and
100,041,935, respectively at a par value of $1 million.
Common stock shares outstanding as of December 31, 2005 and
2004 were 80,701,888 and 87,041,935, respectively. A total of
4,000,000 shares of our common stock are available for
issuance under our long term incentive plan.
As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, the NRG Energy common
stock shares repurchased by the company were 19,346,788 and
13,000,000, respectively, at a cost of $664 million and
$405 million, respectively.
Upon emergence from chapter 11, investment partnerships
managed by MatlinPatterson LLC owned approximately
21.5 million (21.5%) of our common shares. In December
2004, we used existing cash to repurchase 13 million
shares of common stock from MatlinPatterson at a purchase price
of $31.16 per share plus transaction costs of
$0.2 million. In addition to a reduction in total shares of
common stock outstanding by 13 million, the share
repurchase resulted in (i) the reduction of
MatlinPattersons share ownership of NRG Energy to less
than 10% from the prior 21.5%, (ii) termination of
MatlinPattersons registration rights, and
(iii) resignation from our Board of Directors of three
directors affiliated with MatlinPatterson.
On August 11, 2005, we entered into an Accelerated Share
Repurchase Agreement with CSFB, pursuant to which we repurchased
$250 million of our common stock on that date that equaled
a total of 6,346,788 shares, which were held in treasury.
We funded the repurchase with cash on hand. On March 3,
190
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
2006, we paid to CSFB a cash purchase price adjustment of
approximately $7 million based upon the weighted average
value of NRGs common stock over a period of approximately
six months, subject to a minimum price of 97% and a maximum
price of 103% of the closing price per share on August 10,
2005, or $39.39.
On February 2, 2006, we delivered to the Sellers all of the
shares of common stock held in treasury as part of the
consideration for the Texas Genco Acquisition. Also see
Note 34 Subsequent Events.
At December 31, 2005, our authorized amount of preferred
stock is 10,000,000 shares. As of December 31, 2005,
our preferred stock consists of two series, the
4% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock, or 4% Preferred
Stock and the 3.625% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock,
which is treated as Redeemable Preferred Stock, or 3.625%
Preferred Stock.
As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, 420,000 shares of
the 4% Preferred Stock were issued and outstanding at a
liquidation value, net of issuance costs of $406 million.
The 4% Preferred Stock has a liquidation preference of
$1,000 per share of 4% Preferred Stock. Holders of the 4%
Preferred Stock are entitled to receive, when declared by our
Board of Directors, cash dividends at the rate of 4% per
annum, payable quarterly in arrears on March 15,
June 15, September 15 and December 15 of each year,
commencing on March 15, 2005. The 4% Preferred Stock is
convertible, at the option of the holder, at any time into
shares of our common stock at an initial conversion price of
$40.00 per share, which is equal to a conversion rate of
25 shares of common stock per share of the 4% Preferred
Stock, subject to specified adjustments. On or after
December 20, 2009, we may redeem, subject to certain
limitations, some or all of the 4% Preferred Stock with cash at
a redemption price equal to 100% of the liquidation preference,
plus accumulated but unpaid dividends, including liquidated
damages, if any, to the redemption date.
If we are subject to a fundamental change, as defined in the
Certificate of Designation of the 4% Convertible Perpetual
Preferred Stock, each holder of shares of the 4% Preferred Stock
has the right, subject to certain limitations, to require us to
purchase any or all of its shares of Preferred Stock at a
purchase price equal to 100% of the liquidation preference, plus
accumulated and unpaid dividends, including liquidated damages,
if any, to the date of purchase. Final determination of a
fundamental change must be approved by the Board of Directors.
Each holder of the 4% Preferred Stock has one vote for each
share of the 4% Preferred Stock held by the holder on all
matters voted upon by the holders of our common stock, as well
as voting rights specifically provided for in our amended and
restated certificate of incorporation or as otherwise from time
to time required by law. In addition, whenever
(1) dividends on the 4% Preferred Stock or any other class
or series of stock ranking on a parity with the 4% Preferred
Stock with respect to the payment of dividends are in arrears
for dividend periods, whether or not consecutive, containing in
the aggregate a number of days equivalent to six calendar
quarters, or (2) we fail to pay the redemption price on the
date shares of the 4% Preferred Stock are called for redemption
or the purchase price on the purchase date for shares of the 4%
Preferred Stock following a fundamental change, then, in each
case, the holders of the 4% Preferred Stock (voting separately
as a class with all other series of preferred stock upon which
like voting rights have been conferred and are exercisable) are
entitled to vote for the election of two of the authorized
number of our directors at the next annual meeting of
stockholders and at each subsequent meeting until all dividends
accumulated or the redemption price on the Preferred Stock have
been fully paid or set apart for payment. The term of office of
all directors elected by holders of the Preferred Stock
terminates immediately upon the termination of the rights of the
holders of the 4% Preferred Stock to vote for directors. Upon
election of any additional directors, the
191
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
number of directors that comprise our Board of Directors will be
increased by the number of such additional directors.
The 4% Preferred Stock is, with respect to dividend rights and
rights upon liquidation, winding up or dissolution: junior to
all of our existing and future debt obligations; junior to each
other class or series of our capital stock other than
(1) our common stock and any other class or series of our
capital stock which provides that such class or series will rank
junior to the 4% Preferred Stock and (2) any other class or
series of our capital stock the terms of which provide that such
class or series will rank on a parity with the 4% Preferred
Stock; on a parity with any other class or series of our capital
stock the terms of which provide that such class or series will
rank on parity with the 4% Preferred Stock; senior to our common
stock and any other class or series of our capital stock the
terms of which provide that such class or series will rank
junior to the 4% Preferred Stock; and effectively junior to all
of our subsidiaries (1) existing and future liabilities and
(2) capital stock held by others.
The proceeds of $406 million net of issuance costs of
approximately $14 million were primarily used to redeem
$375 million of Second Priority Notes on February 4,
2005.
During the year ended December 31, 2005, we made
$17 million of dividend payments to our 4% Preferred Stock
shareholders.
|
|
|
Redeemable Preferred Stock |
On August 11, 2005, we issued 250,000 shares of 3.625%
Preferred Stock, which is treated as Redeemable Preferred Stock,
to Credit Suisse First Boston Capital LLC, or CSFB, in a private
placement. As of December 31, 2005, 250,000 shares of
the 3.625% Preferred Stock were issued and outstanding at a
liquidation value, net of issuance costs of $246 million.
The 3.625% Preferred Stock is recorded based on the proceeds of
$250 million net of issuance costs of $4 million. This
amount will be accreted over a 10 year period to the
redemption value of $250 million. The 3.625% Preferred
Stock amount is located after the Liabilities but before the
Stockholders Equity section on the Balance Sheet as of
December 31, 2005, due to the fact that the preferred
shares can be redeemed in cash by the shareholder.
The 3.625% Preferred Stock has a liquidation preference of
$1,000 per share. Holders of the 3.625% Preferred Stock are
entitled to receive, out of funds legally available, cash
dividends at the rate of 3.625% per annum, payable in cash
quarterly in arrears commencing on December 15, 2005. Each
share of 3.625% Preferred Stock is convertible during the
90-day period beginning
August 11, 2015 at the option of NRG or the holder. Holders
tendering the 3.625% Preferred Stock for conversion shall be
entitled to receive, for each share of 3.625% Preferred Stock
converted, $1,000 in cash and a number of shares of Common Stock
equal to the product of (x) the greater of (i) the
difference between the average of the closing sale price of the
Common Stock on each of the 20 consecutive scheduled trading
days starting on the date 30 scheduled exchange business days
immediately prior to the conversion date, or the Market Price,
and $59.085 and (ii) zero, times (y) 25.38715. The
number of Common Stock shares to be delivered under the
conversion feature is limited to 8,000,000 shares. If upon
conversion, the Market Price is less than $39.39, then the
Holder will deliver to NRG cash or a number of shares of Common
Stock equal in value to the product of (A) $39.39 minus the
Market Price, times (B) 25.38715. We may elect to make a
cash payment in lieu of delivering shares of common stock in
connection with such conversion, and we may elect to receive
cash in lieu of shares of common stock, if any, from the Holder
in connection with such conversion. If a fundamental change
occurs, the holders will have the right to require us to
repurchase all or a portion of the 3.625% Preferred Stock for a
period of time after the fundamental change at a purchase price
equal to 100% of the liquidation preference, plus accumulated
and unpaid dividends. The 3.625% Preferred Stock are senior to
all classes of common stock, on a parity with our 4% Preferred
Stock and junior to all of our existing and future debt
obligations and all of our subsidiaries existing and
future liabilities and capital stock held by persons other than
NRG or our subsidiaries. The proceeds from issuing the 3.625%
Preferred Stock were used to
192
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
redeem $229 million of Second Priority Notes on
September 12, 2005. During the year ended December 31,
2005, we made $3 million of dividend payments to our 3.625%
Preferred Stock shareholders. See Note 34
Subsequent Events for information related to recent equity
transactions related to the acquisition of Texas Genco.
Note 19 Stock-Based Compensation
|
|
|
Incentive Compensation Plans |
Effective January 1, 2003, we adopted the fair value
recognition provisions of SFAS 123. In accordance with
SFAS 148, we adopted SFAS 123 under the prospective
transition method which requires the application of the
recognition provisions to all employee awards granted, modified,
or settled after the beginning of the fiscal year in which the
recognition provisions are first applied. In December 2004, the
FASB issued a revision to SFAS 123, or SFAS 123(R)
which requires us to recognize expense for stock
based compensation in the statement of income and is effective
for us on January 1, 2006. We do not expect the provisions
of SFAS 123(R) to result in a significant change in the
compensation expense we currently recognize in our statements of
income under SFAS 123.
During 2005, 2004 and 2003, in accordance with SFAS 123, we
recognized approximately $12 million, $14 million and
$0, respectively, of stock based compensation expense under the
Long-Term Incentive Plan (as described below) as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
Non qualified stock options
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Restricted stock units
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred stock units
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Performance units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In December 2003, we adopted a new long-term incentive plan, or
the Long-Term Incentive Plan, which is described below.
The Long-Term Incentive Plan became effective upon our emergence
from bankruptcy and was also approved by our stockholders on
August 4, 2004. The Long-Term Incentive Plan provides for
grants of non-qualified stock options, restricted stock units,
performance units, deferred stock units, stock appreciation
rights and dividend equivalent rights, collectively referred to
as Awards. Our directors, officers and employees, as well as
other individuals performing services for, or to whom an offer
of employment has been extended by us, are eligible to receive
grants under the Long-Term Incentive Plan. The purpose of the
Long-Term Incentive Plan is to promote our long-term growth and
profitability by providing these individuals with incentives to
maximize stockholder value and otherwise contribute to our
success and to enable us to attract, retain and reward the best
available persons for positions of responsibility.
A total of 4,000,000 shares of our common stock are
available for issuance under the Long-Term Incentive Plan,
subject to adjustment in the event of a reorganization,
recapitalization, stock split, reverse stock split, stock
dividend, and combination of shares, merger or similar change in
our structure or our outstanding shares of common stock. There
were 1,355,193 and 2,053,294 shares of common stock
remaining available for grants of Awards under our Long-Term
Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2005 and 2004,
respectively.
193
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors administers
the Long-Term Incentive Plan. If for any reason a Compensation
Committee has not been appointed by our board to administer the
Long-Term Incentive Plan, our Board of Directors has the
authority to administer the plan and to take all actions under
the plan.
The following is a summary of the material terms of the
Long-Term Incentive Plan related to the Awards outstanding as of
December 31, 2005. Unless otherwise noted, these terms are
applicable to all Awards:
Eligibility. Our directors, officers and employees, as
well as other individuals performing services for us are
eligible to receive grants under the Long-Term Incentive Plan.
Exercise price and payment The Compensation
Committee determines the exercise price of any Award granted,
typically the fair market value of a share of our common stock
on the date of grant. In general, the exercise price of any NQSO
may be paid by the holder, in any of the following ways:
|
|
|
|
|
in cash; |
|
|
|
by delivery of shares of common stock with a fair market value
equal to the exercise price; |
|
|
|
by means of any cashless exercise procedure approved by the
Compensation Committee; or |
|
|
|
by any combination of the foregoing. |
Term The Compensation Committee determines
the term of each Award, however, no term may exceed
10 years from the date of grant. In addition, all Awards
generally cease vesting when a grantee ceases to be a director,
officer or employee of, or to otherwise perform services for us.
Vested Awards generally expire 90 days after the date of
cessation of service. There are exceptions depending upon the
circumstances such as the case of a grantees death,
termination due to disability and retirement, where the
grantees vested Awards remain exercisable for a period of
one to two years
Change of control Upon a change in control of
NRG, all of the Awards become fully vested and remain
exercisable until their expiration date. In addition, the
Compensation Committee has the authority to grant Awards that
become fully vested and exercisable automatically upon a change
in control, whether or not the grantee is subsequently
terminated.
|
|
|
Vesting, Withholding Taxes and Transferability of All
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
Awards will vest over a period of not less than six months of
the date of grant. |
|
|
|
Participants may elect to deliver shares of common stock, or to
have us withhold shares of common stock deliverable upon vesting
or exercise, in order to satisfy our tax withholding obligations. |
|
|
|
Awards are not transferable other than by will or the laws of
descent and distribution. |
|
|
|
Awards may be exercised only by the grantee or his or her
executor, administrator, guardian or legal representative, or by
a family member of the grantee if he or she has acquired the
award by gift or qualified domestic relations order. |
Amendment and Termination of the Long-Term Incentive
Plan. The Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee
may amend or terminate the Long-Term Incentive Plan in its
discretion, except that no amendment is effective without prior
approval of our stockholders if approval is required by
applicable law or regulations, including any NASDAQ or stock
exchange listing requirements, if the amendment would remove a
provision of the Long-Term Incentive Plan which, without giving
effect to the amendment, is subject to shareholder approval or
if the amendment would directly or indirectly increase the share
limit of 4,000,000 shares. If not otherwise terminated, the
Long-Term Incentive Plan terminates on the tenth anniversary of
the effective date of our plan of reorganization, which was
December 5, 2003.
194
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
The following types of Awards are issued and outstanding
as of December 31, 2005: |
Stock Options. The Compensation Committee may award
grants of non-qualified stock options conforming to the
requirements of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code,
or NQSOs. The Compensation Committee may not award to any
one person in any calendar year NQSOs to purchase more
than 1,000,000 shares of common stock. In addition, it may
not award NQSOs first exercisable in any calendar year
whose underlying shares have a fair market value greater than
$100,000, determined at the time of grant.
Restricted Stock Units. The Compensation Committee may
award restricted stock units, or RSUs, in the amounts that
it determines in its discretion. Each grant of RSUs is
evidenced by a grant agreement, which specifies the applicable
restrictions on such shares and the duration of the restrictions
(which is generally at least six months). A grantee is required
to pay us at least the aggregate par value of any shares of
RSUs within ten days of the grant, unless the shares are
treasury shares.
Performance Units. The Compensation Committee may grant
performance units, or PUs, contingent upon achievement by
the grantee, us or any of our divisions of specified performance
criteria, such as return on equity over a specified performance
cycle, fair market value of common stock at a specified target
date, or other criteria as determined by the Compensation
Committee. A performance award may be paid out in cash, shares
of our common stock or our other securities.
Deferred Stock Units. The Compensation Committee may
grant deferred stock units, or DSUs, from time to time in
its discretion. A DSU entitles the grantee to receive the fair
market value of one share of common stock at the end of the
deferral period, which is no less than one year. The payment of
the value of DSUs may be made by us in shares of our
common stock, cash or both.
In 2005, we issued NQSOs for a total of
134,000 shares of common stock under the Long-Term
Incentive Plan. These NQSOs have a three-year graded
vesting schedule and become exercisable through the year 2008 at
an exercise price of $38.80 and an estimated fair value of
$13.22. During 2005, 1,500 NQSOs with an exercise price of
$38.80 and an estimated fair value of $13.22 were canceled.
Total compensation expense under all NQSOs grants is
approximately $13 million. Compensation expense for the
years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 was approximately
$4 million and $7 million, respectively. Compensation
expense for the year ended December 31, 2006, will be
approximately $2 million. Compensation expense for the
years 2007 and 2008 is expected to be immaterial. At
December 31, 2005, 531,834 employee NQSOs were
exercisable. The following table summarizes NQSO transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average | |
|
|
|
|
Exercise Price Range | |
|
Exercise | |
|
|
Shares | |
|
per Share | |
|
Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Outstanding at December 6 and December 31, 2003
|
|
|
632,751 |
|
|
$ |
24.03 |
|
|
$ |
24.03 |
|
Granted
|
|
|
330,000 |
|
|
$ |
19.90 - $31.48 |
|
|
$ |
21.46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
962,751 |
|
|
$ |
19.90 - $31.48 |
|
|
$ |
23.15 |
|
Granted
|
|
|
134,000 |
|
|
$ |
38.80 |
|
|
$ |
38.80 |
|
Canceled or expired
|
|
|
(1,500 |
) |
|
$ |
38.80 |
|
|
$ |
38.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
1,095,251 |
|
|
$ |
19.90-38.80 |
|
|
$ |
25.04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes information about stock options
outstanding at December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Options Exercisable | |
|
|
|
|
Weighted- | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Average | |
|
Weighted- | |
|
|
|
Weighted- | |
|
|
|
|
Remaining | |
|
Average | |
|
|
|
Average | |
|
|
Total | |
|
Life (In | |
|
Exercise | |
|
Total | |
|
Exercise | |
Range of exercise prices |
|
Outstanding | |
|
Years) | |
|
Price | |
|
Exercisable | |
|
Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
$19.90 - $22.24
|
|
|
307,000 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
$ |
20.92 |
|
|
|
102,333 |
|
|
$ |
20.92 |
|
$24.03 - $31.48
|
|
|
655,751 |
|
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
$ |
24.20 |
|
|
|
429,501 |
|
|
$ |
24.11 |
|
$38.80
|
|
|
132,500 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
$ |
38.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of the stock option grants were estimated on the
date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, with
the following weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Dividends per year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
29.75 |
% |
|
|
51.05 |
% |
|
|
35.70 |
% |
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.16 |
% |
|
|
3.06 |
% |
|
|
4.24 |
% |
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Fair value
|
|
$ |
13.22 |
|
|
$ |
10.20 |
|
|
$ |
13.17 |
|
As of December 31, 2005, RSUs issued and outstanding
totaled 1,285,944. These units fully vest between three and five
years from the date of issuance. Total compensation expense
attributable to the RSUs is approximately
$35 million. During the year ended December 31, 2005,
we issued 473,850 RSUs at fair values between $33.43 and
$38.80 per unit, cancelled 66,250 RSUs at fair values
between $19.90 and $38.80 per unit and issued
1,642 shares of common stock, net of common stock withheld
for payroll taxes, due to accelerated vesting on 2,650
RSUs. Compensation expense for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004 was approximately
$7 million and $5 million, respectively. Compensation
expense for the years ended December 31, 2006,
December 31, 2007, and December 31, 2008 will be
approximately $12 million, $7 million and
$3 million, respectively. The fair value of the RSUs
is based on the closing price of our common stock on the date of
grant. The weighted-average fair value of our RSUs
outstanding as of December 31, 2005 is $27.14.
As of December 31, 2005, DSUs issued and outstanding
totaled 122,184. During 2005, we issued 68,201 DSUs. The
fair values of the DSUs issued during 2005 were between
$34.72 and $41.05 per unit. These units are fully vested at
the date of issuance. During the year ended December 31,
2005, we issued 5,099 shares of common stock, net of common
stock withheld for payroll taxes, due to the conversion of 6,298
DSUs at fair values between $19.95 and $37.85 per
unit. Total compensation expense attributable to the DSU grants
is approximately $3 million. Compensation expense for the
years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 was approximately
$1 million and $2 million, respectively. The fair
value of the DSUs is based on the closing price of our
common stock on the date of grant. The weighted-average fair
value of our DSUs outstanding as of December 31, 2005
is $29.21
196
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In August 2005, we issued 45,900 PUs. Each performance
unit will be paid out on August 1, 2008 if the Measurement
Price, that is the average closing price of NRGs common
stock for the ten trading days prior to August 1, 2008, is
equal to or greater than $54.50. The payout for each performance
unit will be equal to: (i) one share of common stock, if
the Measurement Price equals the Target Price; (ii) a
pro-rated amount in between one and two shares of common stock,
if the Measurement Price is greater than the Target Price but
less than the Maximum Price of $63.75; and (iii) two shares
of common stock, if the Measurement Price is equal to or greater
than the Maximum Price.
The fair value of the PUs were estimated on the date of
grant using the Monte Carlo valuation model, with the following
weighted average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Units | |
|
|
| |
Dividends per year
|
|
|
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
29.75 |
% |
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
4.09 |
% |
Expected life of PUs (in years)
|
|
|
3 |
|
Fair value
|
|
$ |
29.87 |
|
As of December 31, 2005, PUs outstanding totaled
44,900. During 2005, 45,900 PUs were issued and 1,000
PUs were canceled. Total compensation expense attributable
to the PUs issued is approximately $1 million.
Note 20 Earnings Per Share
Basic earnings per common share were computed by dividing net
income less accumulated preferred stock dividends by the
weighted average number of common stock shares outstanding.
Shares issued during the year are weighted for the portion of
the year that they were outstanding. Diluted earnings per share
is computed in a manner consistent with that of basic earnings
per share while giving effect to all potentially dilutive common
shares that were outstanding during the period.
Dilutive effect for equity compensation The
outstanding non-qualified stock options, non-vested restricted
stock units, deferred stock units and performance units are not
considered outstanding for purposes of computing basic earnings
per share. However, these instruments are included in the
denominator for purposes of computing diluted earnings per share
under the treasury stock method or the if-converted method. The
dilutive effect of the potential exercise of outstanding
non-qualified stock options, non-vested restricted stock units
and performance units is calculated using the treasury stock
method. The dilutive effect of the deferred stock units are
included in the denominator for purposes of computing diluted
earnings per share under the if-converted method.
Dilutive effect for other equity instruments
The outstanding 4% Preferred Stock and 3.625% Preferred Stock
are not considered outstanding for purposes of computing basic
earnings per share. However, these instruments are included in
the denominator for purposes of computing diluted earnings per
share under the if-converted method.
197
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The reconciliation of basic earnings per common share to diluted
earnings per share is shown in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
December 31, 2005 | |
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per share data) | |
Basic earnings per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
$ |
161 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
Deduct preferred stock dividends
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available to common stockholders from continuing
operations
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available to common stockholders
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
185 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
|
|
|
84.6 |
|
|
|
99.6 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
Basic earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
|
$ |
1.61 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
0.09 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.86 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available to common stockholders from continuing
operations
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
Add preferred stock dividends for dilutive preferred stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted income from continuing operations
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available to common stockholders
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
|
|
|
84.6 |
|
|
|
99.6 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
Incremental shares attributable to the issuance of
non-qualifying stock options (treasury stock method)
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incremental shares attributable to the issuance of non-vested
restricted stock units (treasury stock method)
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
Incremental shares attributable to the assumed conversion of
deferred stock units (if converted method)
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Incremental shares attributable to the assumed conversion of the
4% preferred stock (if converted method)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total dilutive shares
|
|
|
85.3 |
|
|
|
100.4 |
|
|
|
100.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.66 |
|
|
$ |
1.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
0.09 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
0.75 |
|
|
$ |
1.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Anti-dilutive effect of certain equity instruments |
Non-Qualified Stock Options For the years
ended December 31, 2005 and, 2004 and the period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003, options to
purchase 132,500, 962,751 and 632,751 shares of common
stock at an average price of $38.80, $23.15 and $24.03 per
share, respectively, were not included in the earnings per share
computation because the effect would be anti-dilutive.
Restricted Stock Units For the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004 , restricted stock units
totaling 459,200 and 77,500 shares of common stock at an
average price of $38.77 and $28.14 per share, respectively,
were not included in the computation because the effect would be
anti-dilutive. All the restricted stock units for the period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 were included in
the computation because the effect would be dilutive.
Performance Units For the year ended
December 31, 2005, 44,900 Performance Units which convert
into common shares of stock were not included in the earnings
per share computation as their effect would be anti-dilutive.
There were no outstanding Performance Units as of
December 31, 2004.
4% Preferred Stock For the year ended
December 31, 2005, the outstanding 4% Preferred Stock which
are convertible into 10,500,000 shares of common stock were
not included in the earnings per share computation because the
effect would be anti-dilutive. However, for the year ended
December 31, 2004, on a weighted average basis,
343,324 shares of common stock associated with the 4%
Preferred Stock were included in the earnings per share
computation.
3.625% Preferred Stock The conversion feature
of the 3.625% Preferred Stock, for the year ended
December 31, 2005, is anti-dilutive and thus not included
in the earnings per share computation. The conversion feature
allows additional cash or common shares to be issued if the
closing average stock price for a
20-day period prior to
conversion exceeds the $59.08 market price trigger at
conversion. The market price trigger was not reached as of
December 31, 2005, and consequently, the conversion feature
of the 3.625% Preferred Stock is considered anti-dilutive.
Note 21 Segment Reporting
Our identified reportable segments are primarily based on
geographic areas, both domestically and abroad. In connection
with our emergence from bankruptcy and the new management team,
we determined that it was necessary to adjust our segment
reporting disclosures to more closely align our disclosures with
the realignment of our management team. Accordingly, we have
expanded our domestic geographical disclosures and collapsed our
international geographical disclosures related to our wholesale
power generation segment. In addition, our other segments have
been further refined. As a result of these changes, we have
retroactively recast our prior period disclosures in a
consistent manner.
Beginning January 1, 2005 management changed the allocation
criteria of corporate general and administrative expenses to the
segments. Prior to 2005, corporate general and administrative
expenses were allocated based on an analysis of man hours spent
on work for each segment. As of January 1, 2005, corporate
general and administrative expenses are allocated based on the
forecasted revenue to be generated by each segment. In the
following table, we have included a reconciliation of the
increase/(decrease) in net income by segment for the year ended
December 31, 2005, assuming the prior allocation criteria
was still in effect.
We conduct the majority of our business within five reportable
operating segments based on geographic regions. Certain
operations consisting of other products and services are
presented under the All Other category. Our
reportable operating segments consist of Wholesale Power
Generation Northeast, Wholesale Power
Generation South Central, Wholesale Power
Generation Western, Wholesale Power
Generation Other North America and Wholesale Power
Generation Australia. These reportable segments are
distinct components with separate operating results and
management structures in place.
199
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Included in the All Other category are our Wholesale Power
Generation Other International operations, our
Alternative Energy operations, our Non-Generation operations
(comprised primarily from our operating services, power
marketing and thermal operations) and an Other component which
includes our corporate charges (primarily interest expense) that
have not been allocated to the reportable segments and the
remainder of our operations which are not significant. We have
presented this detail within the All Other category as we
believe that this information is important to a full
understanding of our business.
All material revenues and long-lived assets attributable to
foreign countries are presented in Wholesale Power
Generation Australia and All Other
Wholesale Power Generation Other International
reportable segments. Furthermore, the segment information has
been reclassified for all discontinued operations.
200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Wholesale Power Generation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
All Other | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
North | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Alternative | |
|
Non- | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
International | |
|
Energy | |
|
Generation | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
1,554 |
|
|
$ |
552 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
212 |
|
|
$ |
163 |
|
|
$ |
70 |
|
|
$ |
158 |
|
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
1,262 |
|
|
|
471 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
2,264 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income/(loss)
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
238 |
|
Minority interest in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
Refinancing expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(218 |
) |
|
|
120 |
|
Income tax expense/(benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
77 |
|
Income/(loss) on discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
$ |
222 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
(39 |
) |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
89 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(229 |
) |
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
603 |
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
1,810 |
|
|
$ |
1,075 |
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
825 |
|
|
$ |
679 |
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
$ |
1,446 |
|
|
$ |
723 |
|
|
$ |
7,431 |
|
If the Company continued using the previous years
allocation method for corporate general and administrative
expenses, the effect to the net income of each segment for the
year ended December 31, 2005 would be as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss) as reported
|
|
$ |
222 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
(39 |
) |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
89 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(229 |
) |
|
$ |
84 |
|
Increase/(decrease) in net income
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted net income/(loss)
|
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
(40 |
) |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
(282 |
) |
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
201
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Wholesale Power Generation | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All Other | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
North | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Alternative | |
|
Non- | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
International | |
|
Energy | |
|
Generation | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
1,251 |
|
|
$ |
418 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
94 |
|
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
2,348 |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
1,699 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income/(loss)
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
393 |
|
Minority interest in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
Refinancing expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
Interest expense
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(181 |
) |
|
|
(266 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(316 |
) |
|
|
226 |
|
Income tax expense/(benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
(379 |
) |
|
|
161 |
|
Income/(loss) on discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
$ |
322 |
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
(18 |
) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
(382 |
) |
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
735 |
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
1,932 |
|
|
$ |
1,077 |
|
|
$ |
279 |
|
|
$ |
783 |
|
|
$ |
1,008 |
|
|
$ |
939 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
512 |
|
|
$ |
1,283 |
|
|
$ |
7,864 |
|
202
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
December 6, 2003 Through December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Wholesale Power Generation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
All Other | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
North | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Alternative | |
|
Non- | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
International | |
|
Energy | |
|
Generation | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
137 |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
108 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income/(loss)
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
Minority interest in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
Income tax expense/(benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
Income/(loss) on discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
203
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor Company | |
|
|
January 1, 2003 Through December 5, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Wholesale Power Generation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
All Other | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
North | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Alternative | |
|
Non- | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast | |
|
Central | |
|
Western | |
|
America | |
|
Australia | |
|
International | |
|
Energy | |
|
Generation | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
861 |
|
|
$ |
357 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
151 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
|
$ |
129 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
1,798 |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
800 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
1,524 |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
211 |
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
198 |
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
232 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
237 |
|
Fresh start reporting adjustments
|
|
|
1,068 |
|
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
(6,537 |
) |
|
|
(4,220 |
) |
Legal settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
468 |
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income/(loss)
|
|
|
(1,331 |
) |
|
|
(384 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(465 |
) |
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
5,890 |
|
|
|
3,385 |
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
171 |
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
19 |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
(1,398 |
) |
|
|
(457 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(514 |
) |
|
|
(189 |
) |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
5,817 |
|
|
|
3,120 |
|
Income tax expense/(benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(1,398 |
) |
|
|
(457 |
) |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(519 |
) |
|
|
(204 |
) |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
5,854 |
|
|
|
3,082 |
|
Income/(loss) on discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(414 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
$ |
(1,398 |
) |
|
$ |
(457 |
) |
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
|
$ |
(933 |
) |
|
$ |
(204 |
) |
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
$ |
(80 |
) |
|
$ |
(161 |
) |
|
$ |
5,839 |
|
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204
Note 22 Income Taxes
The income tax provision (benefit) from continuing operations
consists of the following amounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
18 |
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax (benefit)
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax rate
|
|
|
35.8 |
% |
|
|
28.7 |
% |
|
|
(6.2 |
)% |
|
|
|
1.3 |
% |
The following represents the domestic and foreign income
components of income (loss) from continuing operations before
income tax expense (benefit):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
U.S.
|
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
138 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
3,236 |
|
Foreign
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
226 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
3,120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205
A reconciliation of the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35%
to our effective rate from continuing operations for the year
ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the periods
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 and
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
226 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
|
$ |
3,120 |
|
Tax at 35%
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
1,092 |
|
State taxes, (net of federal benefit)
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
265 |
|
Foreign operations
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Section 965 Taxable Dividend
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subpart F Taxable Income
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh Start accounting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,440 |
) |
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
71 |
|
Change in state effective tax rate
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in tax rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
Permanent differences, reserves, other
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Tax Expense/(Benefit)
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate
|
|
|
35.8 |
% |
|
|
28.7 |
% |
|
|
(6.2 |
)% |
|
|
|
1.3 |
% |
206
The temporary differences, which give rise to our deferred tax
assets and liabilities consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount/premium on notes
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
Emissions credits
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
Difference between book and tax basis of property
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
383 |
|
|
|
381 |
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred compensation, accrued vacation and other reserves
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Development costs
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
Net unrealized gains on mark to market transactions
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Foreign net operating loss carryforwards
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
Differences between book and tax basis of contracts
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
Non-depreciable Property
|
|
|
197 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
Intangibles amortization (other than goodwill)
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Restructuring costs
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
U.S. net operating loss carry forwards
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
U.S. capital loss carryforwards
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
Investments in projects
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets (before valuation allowance)
|
|
|
1,034 |
|
|
|
954 |
|
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(756 |
) |
|
|
(708 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
|
278 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax liability
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The net deferred tax liability consists of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current deferred tax asset
|
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
Non-current deferred tax asset
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(34 |
) |
Non-current deferred tax liability
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax liability
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The effective income tax rate for the year ended
December 31, 2005 differs from the U.S. statutory rate
of 35% due to the U.S. income inclusion upon the sale of
Enfield (considered subpart F income), the taxable portion of a
dividend from foreign operations repatriated pursuant to the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, or the Jobs Act, and
partially offset due to earnings in foreign jurisdictions taxed
at rates lower than the U.S. statutory rate.
For the year ended December 31, 2005 we increased the
estimated state effective income tax rate to 9% from the prior
year state income tax rate of 7%. This increase is due to
managements best estimate of the effective income tax
rates for the various state and local taxing jurisdictions that
we expect to be subject to for income tax filing purposes based
on our business operations within each state. An increase to the
net deferred
207
tax asset balance of approximately $22 million has been
recorded for which a corresponding valuation allowance as
required has been established.
On February 2, 2006, we acquired Texas Genco for which we
will obtain a step up in basis for a large portion of the newly
acquired assets, which will generate tax depreciation expense
deductions reducing our taxable income in future periods.
During 2005, we recorded a current tax payable of approximately
$22 million that represents a liability due to domestic
federal and state tax of approximately $19 million as well
as foreign taxes payable of approximately $3 million.
During 2004, the Company generated current year domestic net
operating losses for federal and state tax purposes, however we
had a $5 million foreign current tax payable.
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets and valuation allowance |
For U.S. income tax purposes, NRG generated additional net
deferred tax assets of $80 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005 of which a valuation allowance of
$65 million was applied due to the uncertainty of
utilization in future periods. As a result of our 2004 income
tax filing, for financial reporting purposes we increased our
domestic NOLs by $198 million and utilized
$207 million during 2005. As of December 31, 2005 we
have an outstanding domestic NOL carryforward of
$93 million that will expire through 2025. Cumulative
foreign NOL carryforwards of $156 million have no
expiration date.
We believe that it is more likely than not that a benefit will
not be realized on a substantial portion of our deferred tax
assets. This assessment included consideration of positive and
negative evidence, our current financial position and results of
historical operations, current operations, projected future
taxable income, projected operating and capital gains and our
available tax planning strategies. During the year ended
December 31, 2005, we reduced the domestic valuation
allowance as a result of the utilization of tax assets and
generated taxable income during the period. Positive evidence
exists that current deferred tax assets when realized during
2006 can be carried back to offset taxable income in 2005. As a
result, a corresponding decrease to the valuation allowance was
recorded.
As of December 31, 2005, a consolidated valuation allowance
of $756 million was recorded against the net deferred tax
assets, of which $741 million is for domestic deferred tax
assets and $15 million is for foreign deferred tax assets.
Furthermore, the consolidated valuation allowance is comprised
of a current and non-current portion of approximately
$114 million and $642 million, respectively.
Under SOP 90-7,
any future benefits from reducing a valuation allowance from
pre-confirmation deferred tax assets should first reduce
intangibles until exhausted and thereafter be reported as a
direct addition to paid-in capital, versus a benefit on our
income statement. Consequently, our effective tax rate in
post-bankruptcy emergence years will not benefit from the
realization of our deferred tax assets, which were fully valued
as of the date of our emergence from bankruptcy. During 2005 we
reduced our valuation allowance by $17 million with a
corresponding reduction to our intangibles by the same amount.
At December 31, 2005, approximately $674 million of
pre-confirmation valuation allowance remained. Upon recognition
in future periods, a reduction to this portion of the valuation
allowance will be recorded against our intangible assets, and
once exhausted, increase our paid-in capital.
|
|
|
Repatriation of foreign funds pursuant to the American
Jobs Creation Act of 2004 |
Pursuant to the Jobs Act, NRG may elect to deduct 85% of certain
eligible dividends received from
non-U.S. subsidiaries
from its taxable income before the end of 2005 if those
dividends are reinvested in the U.S. for eligible purposes.
During the year ended December 31, 2005, NRG repatriated
approximately $298 million of accumulated foreign earnings.
Only a portion of this amount represents the cumulative earnings
and profits which will result in approximately $4.7 million
of tax expense. The remaining amounts transferred are considered
a return of capital. To the extent that NRG does not provide
deferred income taxes for unremitted earnings, it is
managements intent to permanently reinvest those earnings
overseas in
208
accordance with APB Opinion No. 23 Accounting for Income
Taxes-Special Areas, or APB 23. As of December 31,
2005, there are no cumulative losses from our foreign
subsidiaries.
During 2005, the Amazon Development Agency granted
an income tax holiday to our subsidiary Itiquira Energetica SA
pertaining to the local tax liability resulting from
Itiquiras operating income for Brazilian tax purposes,
applicable retroactively to January 1, 2005. The tax
holiday program will reduce the effective income tax rate to
15.25% from a statutory income tax rate of 34% and will expire
in December 31, 2013.
Note 23 Related Party Transactions
Upon emergence from chapter 11, investment partnerships
managed by MatlinPatterson LLC owned approximately
21.5 million (21.5%) of our common shares. We used existing
cash to repurchase 13 million shares of common stock
from MatlinPatterson pursuant to a stock purchase agreement
dated December 13, 2004 at a purchase price of
$31.16 per share. In addition to a reduction in total
shares of common stock outstanding by 13 million, the share
repurchase resulted in (i) the reduction of
MatlinPattersons share ownership of NRG Energy to less
than 10% from the prior 21.5%, (ii) termination of
MatlinPattersons registration rights, and
(iii) resignation from our Board of Directors of three
directors affiliated with MatlinPatterson.
We entered into operation and maintenance agreements, or O&M
agreements, with certain of our equity investments
WCP, Saguaro, Gladstone and MIBRAG. Fees for services under
these contracts primarily include recovery of our costs of
operating the plant as approved in the annual budget, as well as
a base monthly fee. At WCP, we also provide services under
Administrative Management Agreements, or AMAs. Services provided
under the AMAs include environmental, engineering, legal and
public relations services not covered under the O&M
agreements. We also entered into long-term coal purchase
agreements with MIBRAG to supply coal to Schkopau, a
consolidated subsidiary. These fees and expenses are included in
our operating revenues and operating costs in the consolidated
statements of operations and consisted of the following:
209
Related Party Transactions with Equity Investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Revenues from Related Parties Included in Revenues from
Majority-Owned Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O&M fees
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
AMA fees
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Saguaro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gladstone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
MIBRAG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O&M fees
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses from Related Parties Included in Cost of
Majority-Owned Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIBRAG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of purchased coal
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
Prior to our emergence from bankruptcy on December 5, 2003,
NRG Energy was an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy. Prior to December 5, 2003, we had entered into
material transactions and agreements with Xcel Energy which are
described below. Upon emergence from bankruptcy, we became an
independent public company with no material affiliation or
relationship to Xcel Energy. We have included amounts paid to or
received from Xcel Energy during the year ended
December 31, 2005, December 31, 2004 and for the
period December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 only for
comparative purposes, as these transactions are not considered
related party transactions subsequent to December 5, 2003.
We have two agreements with Xcel Energy for the purchase of
thermal energy. Under the terms of the agreements, Xcel Energy
charges us for certain costs (fuel, labor, plant maintenance,
and auxiliary power) incurred by Xcel Energy to produce the
thermal energy. We paid Xcel Energy $11 million,
$11 million, $1 million, and $10 million during
the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003, and the period
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003 respectively,
under these agreements. These agreements are expected to
terminate in 2007.
We have a renewable
10-year agreement with
Xcel Energy, expiring on December 31, 2006, whereby Xcel
Energy agreed to purchase refuse-derived fuel for use in certain
of its boilers and we agree to pay Xcel Energy a burn
incentive. Under this agreement, we received $2 million,
$1 million, $0 and $1 million from Xcel Energy and
paid $4 million, $4 million, $0 million and
$4 million to Xcel Energy during the year
210
ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the period
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 and the period
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003, respectively.
|
|
|
Administrative Services and Other Costs |
We had an administrative services agreement in place with Xcel
Energy. Under this agreement we reimbursed Xcel Energy for
certain overhead and administrative costs, including benefits
administration, engineering support, accounting and other shared
services as requested by us. In addition, our employees
participated in certain employee benefit plans of Xcel Energy as
discussed in Note 24. We reimbursed Xcel Energy in the
amount of $7.3 million during the period January 1,
2003 to December 5, 2003, under this agreement. This
agreement was terminated December 5, 2003.
|
|
|
Natural Gas Marketing and Trading Agreement |
We had an agreement with e prime, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Xcel Energy, under which e prime provided natural gas marketing
and trading from time to time at our request. This agreement was
terminated by e prime on December 12, 2002 and a
termination charge of $0.3 million was paid in the period
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003.
Note 24 Benefit Plans and Other
Postretirement Benefits
Substantially all employees hired prior to December 5, 2003
were eligible to participate in our defined benefit pension
plans. We have initiated new NRG Energy noncontributory, defined
benefit pension plans effective January 1, 2004, with
credit for service from December 5, 2003.
In addition, we provide postretirement health and welfare
benefits (health care and death benefits) for certain groups of
our employees. Generally, these are groups that were acquired in
recent years and for whom prior benefits are being continued (at
least for a certain period of time or as required by union
contracts). Cost sharing provisions vary by acquisition group
and terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreements. We
expect to contribute approximately $18 million to our NRG
pension plans in 2006.
|
|
|
NRG Flinders Retirement Plan |
Employees of NRG Flinders, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG
Energy, are members of the multiemployer Electricity Industry
Superannuation Schemes, or EISS. Members of the EISS make
contributions from their salary and the EISS Actuary makes an
assessment of our liability. As a result of adopting Fresh Start
we recorded a liability of approximately $14 million at
December 5, 2003, to record our accumulated benefit
obligation plan assets on the balance sheet at fair value. The
balance sheet includes a liability related to the Flinders
retirement plan of $15 million and $9 million at
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. NRG Flinders
contributed approximately $6 million, $10 million, $0
and $5 million for the years ended December 31, 2005
and 2004, the period December 6 through December 31, 2003
and the period January 1 through December 5, 2003,
respectively.
The Superannuation Board is responsible for the investment of
EISS assets. The assets may be invested in government
securities, shares, property and a variety of other securities
and the Board may appoint professional investment managers to
invest all or part of the assets on its behalf.
211
|
|
|
NRG Pension and Postretirement Medical Plans |
|
|
|
Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost |
The net annual periodic pension cost related to our domestic
plans, include the following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
Company |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
For the Period |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
January 1 - |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 5, |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2003 |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
Service cost benefits earned
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Interest cost on benefit obligation
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtailment gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG |
|
Company | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period |
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - |
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, |
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Service cost benefits earned
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
Interest cost on benefit obligation
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized actuarial (gain)/loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
212
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Funded Status |
A comparison of the pension benefit obligation and pension
assets at December 31, 2005 and 2004 for all of our plans
on a combined basis is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Other Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
Reorganized NRG |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Benefit obligation at January 1
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
Service cost
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Plan initiation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan curtailment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial (gain)/loss
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Benefit payments
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at December 31
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at January 1
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Benefit payments
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at December 31
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status at December 31 excess of
obligation over assets
|
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
Unrecognized net (gain) loss
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit liability recognized on the consolidated balance
sheet at December 31
|
|
$ |
(62 |
) |
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
(49 |
) |
|
$ |
(45 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts recognized in the balance sheets consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Other Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Accrued benefit cost
|
|
$ |
(62 |
) |
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
(49 |
) |
|
$ |
(45 |
) |
Unfunded accrued benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized
|
|
$ |
(62 |
) |
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
(49 |
) |
|
$ |
(45 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
213
The following table presents the balances of significant
components of our domestic pension plans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
The following table presents the significant assumptions used to
calculate the benefit obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Other Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine benefit
obligations at December 31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.50 |
% |
|
|
5.75 |
% |
|
|
5.50% |
|
|
|
5.75% |
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00 - 4.50 |
% |
|
|
4.00 - 4.50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.5% grading to |
|
|
|
9% grading to |
|
Health care trend rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.5% in 2012 |
|
|
|
5.5% in 2009 |
|
The following table presents the significant assumptions used to
calculate the benefit expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Other Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net periodic
benefit cost for years ended December 31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.75 |
% |
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
5.75% |
|
|
|
6.00% |
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00 - 4.50 |
% |
|
|
4.00 - 4.50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health care trend rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9% grading to |
|
|
|
10% grading to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.5% in 2009 |
|
|
|
5.5% in 2009 |
|
We use December 31 of each respective year as the
measurement date for our pension and other benefit plans. We set
the discount rate assumptions on an annual basis for each of our
retirement related benefit plans at their respective measurement
date. This rate is determined by our Investment Committee based
on information provided by our actuary whose discount rate
assumptions reflect the current rate at which the associated
liabilities could be effectively settled at the end of the year.
Such assumptions consider high-quality corporate bond indices,
such as Moodys Aa, when selecting the discount rate. Using
these methodologies, we determined a discount rate of 5.50% to
be appropriate as of December 31, 2005, which is a
reduction of 0.25% from the rate used as of December 31,
2004.
NRG employs a total return investment approach whereby a mix of
equities and fixed income investments are used to maximize the
long-term return of plan assets for a prudent level of risk.
Risk tolerance is established through careful consideration of
plan liabilities, plan funded status and corporate financial
condition. The target allocation of plan assets is 60% to 80%
invested in equity securities, with the remainder invested in
fixed income securities. The Investment Committee will review
the asset mix periodically and as the plan assets increase in
future years, the Committee may examine other asset classes such
as real estate, private equity, etc. NRG employs a building
block approach to determining the long-term rate of return for
plan assets with proper consideration given to diversification
and rebalancing. Historical markets are studied and long-term
historical relationships between equities and fixed income are
preserved consistent with the widely accepted capital market
principle that assets with higher volatility generate a greater
return over the long run. Current factors such as inflation and
interest rates are evaluated before long-term capital market
214
assumptions are determined. Peer data and historical returns are
reviewed to check for reasonability and appropriateness.
Plan assets are currently invested in a diversified blend of
equity and fixed-income investments. Furthermore, equity
investments are diversified across US and non-US stocks, as well
as growth, value, and small and large capitalizations. The plan
assets weighted average allocation was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
US Equity
|
|
|
56 |
% |
|
|
N/A |
|
International Equity
|
|
|
15 |
% |
|
|
N/A |
|
US Fixed Income
|
|
|
29 |
% |
|
|
N/A |
|
Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Expected future benefit payments are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post Retirement Medical Plans | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Medicare Prescription | |
|
|
Benefit Payments | |
|
Benefit Payments | |
|
Drug Reimbursements | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2006
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
2007
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
2011-2015
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect
on the amounts reported for the health care plans. A
one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend
rates would have the following effect:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-Percentage- | |
|
1-Percentage- | |
|
|
Point Increase | |
|
Point Decrease | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Effect on total service and interest cost components
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Effect on postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
Defined Contribution Plans |
Our employees have also been eligible to participate in defined
contribution 401(K) plans. Our contributions to these plans were
approximately $5 million, $4 million and
$4 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004
and 2003, respectively.
Prior to December 5, 2003, all eligible employees
participated in Xcel Energys noncontributory, defined
benefit pension plan, which was formerly sponsored by NSP. We
sponsored two defined benefit plans that were merged into Xcel
Energys plan as of June 30, 2002. Benefits were
generally based on a combination of an employees years of
service and earnings. Some formulas also took into account
Social Security benefits. Plan assets principally consisted of
the common stock of public companies, corporate bonds and
U.S. government securities.
Prior to December 5, 2003, certain former NRG retirees were
covered under the legacy Xcel Energy plan, which was terminated
for non-bargaining employees retiring after 1998 and for
bargaining employees retiring after 1999.
As a result of our emergence from bankruptcy on December 5,
2003, we are no longer owned by or affiliated with Xcel Energy
and our employees are no longer active participants in the Xcel
Energy plans.
215
|
|
|
Participation in Xcel Energy, Inc. Pension Plan and
Postretirement Medical Plan |
We did not make contributions to the Xcel Energy pension plan
and postretirement plan in 2003. As of December 31, 2003,
there are no liabilities recorded related to the Xcel Energy
plans. The liabilities associated with these plans were settled
as part of the NRG plan of reorganization. The net annual
periodic cost (credit) related to our portion of the Xcel Energy
pension plan and postretirement plans totaled $0.2 million 2003.
Prior to December 5, 2003, certain employees also
participated in Xcel Energys noncontributory defined
benefit supplemental retirement income plan. This plan was for
the benefit of certain qualifying executive personnel. Benefits
for this unfunded plan were paid out of operating cash flows.
The liability related to this plan was not material as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
|
|
|
2003 Medicare Legislation |
In May 2004, the FASB issued FSP 106-2 that provides guidance on
accounting for the effects of the new Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 by employers
whose prescription drug benefits are actuarially equivalent to
the drug benefit under Medicare Part D. FSP 106-2 is
effective as of the first interim period beginning after
June 15, 2004. NRG Energy adopted FSP 106-2 in the third
quarter of 2004 on a retroactive basis. Adoption of FSP 106-2
reduces the annual non-cash postretirement health expense by
approximately $0.2 million and reduce the accumulated
postretirement benefit obligation by $2.2 million. The
change in accumulated postretirement benefit obligation has been
reflected as an actuarial gain and will be amortized in future
periods.
|
|
Note 25 |
Commitments and Contingencies |
|
|
|
Operating Lease Commitments |
We lease certain of our facilities and equipment under operating
leases, some of which include escalation clauses, expiring on
various dates through 2023. Certain operating lease agreements
over their lease term include provisions such as scheduled rent
increases, leasehold incentives and rent concessions. We
recognize the effects of those scheduled rent increases,
leasehold incentives and rent concessions on a straight-line
basis over the lease term unless another systematic and rational
allocation basis is more representative of the time pattern in
which the leased property is physically employed. Rental expense
under these operating leases was approximately $9 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005, $11 million for
the year ended December 31, 2004, $1 million for the
period December 6, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and
$12 million for the period January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003. Future minimum lease commitments under
these leases for the years ending after December 31, 2005
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2006
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
2007
|
|
|
21 |
|
2008
|
|
|
16 |
|
2009
|
|
|
14 |
|
2010
|
|
|
13 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
|
|
|
In August 2004, we entered into a contract to
purchase 1,540 aluminum railcars from Freight Car America,
formerly Johnstown America Corporation, to be used for the
transportation of low sulfur coal from Wyoming to NRGs
coal burning generating plants, including our New York and South
Central facilities. On February 18, 2005, we entered into a
ten-year operating lease agreement with GE Railcar Services
Corporation, or GE, for the lease of 1,500 railcars. The lease
was amended on August 2, 2005 to include an additional 40
railcars, bringing the total number of leased railcars to 1,540.
Delivery of the railcars from
216
Freight Car America commenced in February 2005 and was completed
by August 2005. We have assigned certain of our rights and
obligations for the 1,540 railcars under the purchase agreement
with Freight Car America to GE. Accordingly, the railcars which
we lease from GE under the arrangement described above were
purchased by GE from Freight Car America in lieu of our purchase
of those railcars.
|
|
|
Coal Purchase and Transportation Commitments |
In March 2005, we entered into an agreement to
purchase 23.75 million tons of coal over a period of
four years and nine months from Buckskin Mining Company, or
Buckskin. The coal will be sourced from Buckskins mine in
the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, and will be used primarily in
NRG Energys coal-burning generation plants in the South
Central region. Future payments under this agreement and other
outstanding agreements for the years ending after
December 31, 2005 are estimated as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2006
|
|
$ |
192 |
|
2007
|
|
|
106 |
|
2008
|
|
|
48 |
|
2009
|
|
|
49 |
|
2010
|
|
|
3 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
416 |
|
|
|
|
|
Two of our wholly-owned, indirect subsidiaries are severally
responsible for the prorate payments of principal, interest and
related costs incurred in connection with the financing of our
equity investment in the unincorporated joint venture Gladstone
Power Station. At December 31, 2005, we were obligated for
the loan of AUD 88 million (approximately
US $65 million) in principal. This loan is scheduled
to be fully repaid on March 31, 2009.
In May 2001, our wholly-owned subsidiary, NRG FinCo, entered
into a $2.0 billion revolving credit facility. The facility
was established to finance the acquisition, development and
construction of certain power generating plants located in the
United States and to finance the acquisition of turbines for
such facilities. The facility provided for borrowings of base
rate loans and Eurocurrency loans and was secured by mortgages
and security agreements in respect of the assets of the projects
financed under the facility, pledges of the equity interests in
the subsidiaries or affiliates of the borrower that own such
projects, and by guaranties from each such subsidiary or
affiliate. The NRG FinCo secured revolver was initially
scheduled to mature on May 8, 2006; however, due to
defaults hereunder by NRG FinCo and applicable guarantors, the
lenders accelerated all outstanding obligations on
November 6, 2002. As of our emergence from bankruptcy,
$1.1 billion was outstanding under the facility, and there
was an aggregate of approximately $58 million of accrued
but unpaid interest and commitment fees. Of this,
$842 million was allowed in unsecured claims under the NRG
plan of reorganization, and was settled at the time of our
emergence. The remaining balance will be satisfied when the NRG
FinCo lenders exercise their perfected security interests in our
Nelson, Audrain and Pike projects. During 2004, we sold our
Nelson assets for approximately $20 million and certain
assets of our Pike project for $17 million. The proceeds
from these sales were paid to the lenders. As of
December 31, 2005, we hold assets in our Audrain project,
principally property, plant and equipment, and some remaining
ancillary equipment in our Pike project of approximately
$115 million and $3 million, respectively. Proceeds
from the sale of these assets are owed to the NRG FinCo lenders,
accordingly there are liabilities reflected in other bankruptcy
settlement and within discontinued operations for the same
amount on our consolidated balance sheet. We are in the process
of marketing for sale the remaining Pike equipment on behalf of
the NRG FinCo lenders. The
217
NRG FinCo lenders have authority under their perfected security
interest to accept or reject all offers. On December 8,
2005, we entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement to
sell all of the assets of Audrain to AmerenUE, a subsidiary of
Ameren Corporation . Accordingly, we have classified Audrain as
discontinued operations. The purchase price is $115 million
and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2006. In
accordance with a Term Sheet Agreement with the NRG FinCo
lenders, we have the right to retain certain proceeds from the
sale as a success fee. Accordingly, we expect to record a gain
on the sale of $15 million upon closing.
In November 2002, NYISO notified us of claims related to New
York City mitigation adjustments, general NYISO billing
adjustments and other miscellaneous charges related to sales
between November 2000 and October 2002. New York City mitigation
adjustments totaled approximately $11 million. The issue
related to NYISOs concern that NRG would not have
sufficient revenue to cover subsequent revisions to its energy
market settlements. As of December 31, 2005, NYISO held
approximately $4 million in escrow for such future
settlement revisions.
Set forth below is a description of our material legal
proceedings. Pursuant to the requirements of SFAS 5,
Accounting for Contingencies, and related
guidance, we record reserves for estimated losses from
contingencies when information available indicates that a loss
is probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable.
Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and
unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no
certainty that we may not ultimately incur charges in excess of
presently recorded reserves. A future adverse ruling or
unfavorable development could result in future charges which
could have a material adverse effect on NRGs consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
With respect to a number of the items listed below, management
has determined that a loss is not probable or the amount of the
loss is not reasonably estimable, or both. In some cases,
management is not able to predict with any degree of substantial
certainty the range of possible loss that could be incurred.
Notwithstanding these facts, management has assessed each of
these matters based on current information and made a judgment
concerning its potential outcome, considering the nature of the
claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the
probability of success. Managements judgment may, as a
result of facts arising prior to resolution of these matters or
other factors prove inaccurate and investors should be aware
that such judgment is made subject to the known uncertainty of
litigation.
In addition to the legal proceedings noted below, we are parties
to other litigation or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary
course of business. In managements opinion, the
disposition of these ordinary course matters will not materially
adversely affect our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the legal
proceedings and investigations described below and intends to
defend them vigorously. However, litigation is inherently
subject to many uncertainties. There can be no assurance that
additional litigation will not be filed against the Company or
its subsidiaries in the future asserting similar or different
legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages
and relief. Unless specified below, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these legal proceedings and
investigations may have or reasonably estimate the scope or
amount of any associated costs and potential liabilities. An
unfavorable outcome in one or more of these proceedings could
have a material impact on the Companys consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The
Company also has indemnity rights for some of these proceedings
to reimburse the Company for certain legal expenses and to
offset certain amounts deemed to be owed in the event of an
unfavorable litigation outcome.
218
|
|
|
California Electricity and Related Litigation |
NRG, WCP, WCPs four operating subsidiaries, Dynegy, Inc.
and numerous other unrelated parties are the subject of numerous
lawsuits arising based on events occurring in the California
power market. The complaints primarily allege that the
defendants engaged in unfair business practices, price fixing,
antitrust violations, and other market gaming
activities. Certain of these lawsuits originally commenced in
2000 and 2001, which seek unspecified treble damages and
injunctive relief, were consolidated and made a part of a
Multi-District Litigation proceeding before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. In December 2002, the district court found that
federal jurisdiction was absent and remanded the cases back to
state court. On December 8, 2004, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court in
most respects. On March 3, 2005, the Ninth Circuit denied a
motion for rehearing. On May 5, 2005, the case was remanded
to California state court and, under a scheduling order,
defendants filed their objections to the pleadings. On
July 22, 2005, based upon the filed rate doctrine and
federal preemption, the court dismissed NRG Energy, Inc. without
prejudice, leaving only subsidiaries of WCP remaining in the
case. On October 3, 2005, the court sustained
defendants demurrer dismissing the case against all
remaining defendants. On December 2, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal from the dismissal.
In addition to the cases discussed above, other cases, including
putative class actions, have been filed in state and federal
court on behalf of business and residential electricity
consumers that name NRG and/or WCP and/or certain subsidiaries
of WCP, in addition to numerous other defendants. The complaints
allege the defendants attempted to manipulate gas indexes by
reporting false and fraudulent trades, and violated
Californias antitrust law and unfair business practices
law. The complaints seek restitution and disgorgement, civil
fines, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys fees
and declaratory and injunctive relief. Motion practice is
proceeding in these cases and dispositive motions have been
filed in several of these proceedings. In the above referenced
cases relating to natural gas, Dynegy is defending WCP and/or
its subsidiaries pursuant to an indemnification agreement and
will be the responsible party for any loss. In cases relating to
electricity, Dynegys counsel is representing it and WCP
and/or its subsidiaries with each party responsible for half of
the costs and each party shall be responsible for half of any
loss. Where NRG is named as a party in an electricity case, it
is defending the case and bears its own costs of defense.
There are proceedings in which WCP and WCP subsidiaries are
parties, which either are pending before FERC or on appeal from
FERC to various U.S. Courts of Appeal. These cases involve,
among other things, allegations of physical withholding, a
FERC-established price mitigation plan determining maximum rates
for wholesale power transactions in certain spot markets, and
the enforceability of, and obligations under, various contracts
with, among others, the Cal ISO, the California Department of
Water Resources, or CDWR, and the State of California. The CDWR
claim involves a February 2002 complaint filed by the State of
California demanding that FERC abrogate the CDWR contract
between the State and subsidiaries of WCP and seeking refunds
associated with revenues collected from CDWR by WCP. In 2003,
FERC rejected this demand and subsequently denied rehearing. The
case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit where all briefs were filed and oral argument was
held December 8, 2004. Dynegy is indemnified by WCP and WCP
is responsible for any loss unless any such loss resulted from
Dynegys gross negligence or willful misconduct.
|
|
|
New York Operating Reserve Markets |
Consolidated Edison and others petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of
FERCs refusal to order a re-determination of prices in the
New York Independent System Operator, or NYISO, operating
reserve markets for a two month period in 2000. On
November 7, 2003, the court found that NYISOs method
of pricing spinning reserves violated the NYISO tariff. On
March 4, 2005, FERC issued an order favorable to NRG
stating that no refunds would be required for the tariff
violation associated with the pricing of spinning reserves. In
the order, FERC also stated that the exclusion of the
Blenheim-Gilboa facility and western reserves from the
non-spinning market was not a market flaw and
219
NYISO was correct not to use its authority to revise the prices
in this market. A motion for rehearing of the order was filed
before the April 3, 2005 deadline and on November 17,
2005 FERC denied rehearing.
|
|
|
Connecticut Congestion Charges |
On November 28, 2001, CL&P sought recovery in the
U.S. District Court for Connecticut for amounts it claimed
were owed for congestion charges under the October 29, 1999
Standard Offer Services Contract. CL&P withheld
approximately $30 million from amounts owed to PMI under
contract and PMI counterclaimed. CL&Ps motion for
summary judgment, which PMI opposed, remains pending. We cannot
estimate at this time the overall exposure for congestion
charges for the term of the contract prior to the implementation
of standard market design, which occurred on March 1, 2003;
however, such amount has been fully reserved as a reduction to
outstanding accounts receivable.
|
|
|
New York Public Interest Research Group |
On October 24, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued its opinion in New York Public Interest
Research Group (NYPIRG) v. Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In
2000, the NYSDEC issued a NOV to the prior owner of the Huntley
and Dunkirk stations. After an unsuccessful challenge to the
stations Title V air quality permits by NYPIRG, it
appealed. The Second Circuit held that, during the Title V
permitting process for the two stations, the 2000 NOV should
have been sufficient for the NYSDEC to have made a finding that
the stations were out of compliance. Accordingly, the court
stated that the EPA should have objected to the Title V
permits on that basis and the permits should have included
compliance schedules. On June 3, 2005, the consent decree
among NYSDEC, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and NRG was
entered in federal court, settling the substantive issues
discussed by the Second Circuit in its decision. NYSDEC is in
the process of incorporating the consent decree obligations into
the Huntley and Dunkirk Title V permits so as to make them
permit conditions, an action we believe is supported by the
decision. On January 12, 2006, the NYSDEC, the EPA and NRG
filed individual petitions for rehearing with the Second
Circuit. On January 31, 2006, the court denied the
petitions of the NYSDEC and EPA. NRGs petition for
rehearing en banc remains pending.
On October 2, 2000, NiMo commenced an action against NRG in
New York state court seeking damages related to NRGs
alleged failure to pay retail tariff amounts for utility
services at the Dunkirk Plant between June 1999 and September
2000. The parties agreed to consolidate this action with two
other actions against the Huntley and Oswego Plants. On
October 8, 2002, by stipulation and order, this action was
stayed pending submission to FERC of some or all of the disputes
in the action. The contingent loss from this case is
approximately $26 million, and at this time we believe we
are adequately reserved. In a companion action at FERC, NiMo
asserted the same claims and legal theories, and on
November 19, 2004, FERC denied NiMos petition and
ruled that the NRG facilities could net their service
obligations over each 30 calendar day period from the day NRG
acquired the facilities. In addition, FERC ruled that neither
NiMo nor the New York Public Service Commission could impose a
retail delivery charge on the NRG facilities because they are
interconnected to transmission and not to distribution. On
April 22, 2005, FERC denied NiMos motion for
rehearing. NiMo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit which, on May 12, 2005, consolidated the
appeal with several pending station service disputes involving
NiMo. All parties filed their briefs prior to the
January 17, 2006 deadline.
On December 14, 1999, NRG acquired certain generating
facilities from CL&P. A dispute arose over station service
power and delivery services provided to the facilities. On
December 20, 2002, as a result of a petition filed at FERC
by Northeast Utilities Services Company on behalf of itself and
CL&P, FERC issued an order finding that, at times when NRG
is not able to self-supply its station power needs, there is a
sale of station power from a third-party and retail charges
apply. In August 2003, the parties agreed to submit the dispute
to binding arbitration, however, the parties have yet to agree
on a description of the dispute and on the appointment of a
neutral arbitrator. The contingent loss from this case could
exceed $5 million, and at this time we believe we are
adequately reserved.
220
|
|
|
Itiquira Energetica, S.A. |
NRGs Brazilian project company, Itiquira Energetica S.A.,
or Itiquira, the owner of a 156 MW hydro project in Brazil,
is in arbitration with the former Engineering, Procurement and
Construction, or EPC, contractor for the project, Inepar
Industria e Construcoes, or Inepar. The dispute was commenced in
arbitration by Itiquira in September of 2002 and pertains to
certain matters arising under the EPC contract between the
parties. Itiquira sought Real 140 million and asserted that
Inepar breached the contract. Inepar sought Real 39 million
and alleged that Itiquira breached the contract. On
September 2, 2005, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of
Itiquira, awarding it Real 139 million and Inepar Real
4.7 million. Due to interest accrued from the commencement
of the arbitration to the award date, Itiquiras award is
increased to approximately Real 227 million (approximately
$97 as of December 31, 2005). Itiquira has commenced the
lengthy process in Brazil to execute on the arbitral award. We
are unable to predict the outcome of this execution process. On
October 14, 2005, Inepar filed with the arbitration panel a
request for clarifications of the ruling and Itiquira objected.
On December 21, 2005, Inepars request for
clarifications was denied. Due to the uncertainty of the
collection process, NRG is accounting for receipt of any amounts
as a gain contingency.
On July 1, 2004, the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission, or CFTC, filed a civil complaint against NRG in
Minnesota federal district court, alleging false reporting of
natural gas trades from August 2001 to May 2002, and seeking an
injunction against future violations of the Commodity Exchange
Act. On November 17, 2004, a bankruptcy court hearing was
held on the CFTCs motion to reinstate its expunged
bankruptcy claim, and on NRGs motion to enforce the
provisions of the NRG plan of reorganization, thereby precluding
the CFTC from continuing its federal court action. The
bankruptcy court has yet to schedule a hearing or rule on the
CFTCs pending motion to reinstate its expunged claim. On
December 6, 2004, a federal magistrate judge issued a
report and recommendation that NRGs motion to dismiss be
granted. That motion to dismiss was granted by the federal
district court in Minnesota on March 16, 2005. On
May 13, 2005 the CFTC filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The CFTC
filed its brief on August 9, 2005, and on
September 29, 2005 NRG filed its brief. On October 28,
2005, the CFTC filed its reply brief.
As part of the NRG plan of reorganization, we have funded a
disputed claims reserve for the satisfaction of certain general
unsecured claims that were disputed claims as of the effective
date of the plan. Under the terms of the plan, as such claims
are resolved, the claimants are paid from the reserve on the
same basis as if they had been paid out in the bankruptcy. To
the extent the aggregate amount required to be paid on the
disputed claims exceeds the amount remaining in the funded
claims reserve, we will be obligated to provide additional cash
and common stock to the satisfy the claims. Any excess funds in
the disputed claims reserve will be reallocated to the creditor
pool for the pro rata benefit of all allowed claims. The
contributed common stock and cash in the reserves is held by an
escrow agent to complete the distribution and settlement
process. Since we have surrendered control over the common stock
and cash provided to the disputed claims reserve, we recognized
the issuance of the common stock as of December 6, 2003 and
removed the cash amounts from our balance sheet. Similarly, we
removed the obligations relevant to the claims from our balance
sheet when the common stock was issued and cash contributed.
The face amount of the remaining unresolved claims is
approximately $35 million, plus unresolved claims relating
to the California power crisis in 2000-2001 and other claims of
indefinite amount, but the Company estimates that the actual
amount of these claims, once settled, will be less than $35
million. Based on these estimates, the Company believes that in
order to assure sufficient funds to satisfy all remaining
disputed claims the reserve needs to retain approximately
$7 million in cash and approximately 650,000 shares of
common stock. The reserve currently holds cash and stock in
excess of these amounts, and the Company intends to make a
supplemental distribution of the surplus on or about
April 1, 2006. The total value of the planned distribution
is approximately $137 million, based on the closing stock
price on March 3, 2006, consisting of approximately
$25 million in cash and 2,541,000 shares of NRG common
stock. NRGs
221
chapter 11 creditors holding allowed claims in Class 5
are expected to receive approximately $22.13 per $1,000.00 of
allowed claim, consisting of $4.05 in cash and 0.41 shares
of NRG common stock. Creditors holding Class 6 allowed
claims are expected to receive approximately $19.97 per
$1,000.00 of allowed claim, consisting of $1.89 in cash and
0.41 shares of NRG common stock.
|
|
Note 26 |
Regulatory Matters |
With the exception of NRGs Thermal and Chilled Water
business, NRGs operations are not regulated operations
subject to SFAS 71 and NRG does not record assets and
liabilities that result from the regulated ratemaking processes
in the same manner as do regulated public utilities. NRG does
operate, however, in a highly regulated industry and we are
subject to regulation by various federal and state agencies. As
such we are affected by regulatory developments in the regions
in which we operate.
During 2005, NRGs Devon, Middleton and Montville stations
operated under RMR agreements with ISO-NE that expired at the
end of 2005. On November 1, 2005, NRG filed new RMR
agreements with FERC in order provide for the continued
provision of reliability services from these resources.
Following the filing of interventions and protests challenging
the proposed rates and provisions of the filed RMR agreements,
NRG entered into a settlement agreement with the Connecticut
Department of Public Utility Control, the Connecticut Office of
Consumer Counsel, and ISO-NE that was filed with FERC on
December 20, 2005, and that provided for the acceptance of
new RMR agreements as described below, or Settlement RMR
Agreements. The Commission accepted the Settlement RMR
Agreements on February 1, 2006, establishing rates
effective January 1, 2006 and effect immediately upon the
expiration of the existing RMR agreements.
Under the Settlement RMR Agreements, NRG is entitled to annual
fixed revenue requirement of $98 million, allocated among
the stations, subject to NRG meeting the availability
requirements specified therein. In addition, NRG is also
entitled to retain 35% of its market revenues from the subject
stations, while crediting 65% of such revenues against the
monthly availability payments there under. The Settlement RMR
Agreements specify that they remain in effect until a Location
Installed Capacity market, or LICAP, or other similar capacity
payment mechanism, is fully implemented or as FERC may otherwise
determine if it approves a transition program for LICAP. In
addition, the Settlement RMR Agreements contain some new
termination provisions. For example, the Devon RMR agreement
will terminate ninety days after the commencement of Locational
Forward Reserve Market, but no earlier than January 1,
2007. In certain circumstances, after January 1, 2007, the
Connecticut entities will be allowed to seek termination by
filing a Section 206 complaint at FERC.
On February 15, 2006, we reported to FERC and to ISO-NE
that for two days in January 2006, after unit 12 at Devon had
been removed from service for needed maintenance, the unit was
erroneously reported to ISO-NE as available. We further reported
that when ISO-NE dispatched the Devon units on January 25,
2006, and unit 12 was unable to respond, inaccurate information
was provided to ISO-NE. We are investigating the matter and are
cooperating with FERC and ISO-NE.
|
|
|
LICAP Market Developments |
On August 31, 2004, ISO-NE filed its proposal for designing
and implementing a Location Installed Capacity market, or LICAP,
with FERC. On June 15, 2005, the FERC administrative law
judge assigned to the proceeding issued her decision,
recommending that FERC approve ISO-NEs proposed LICAP
design with a few modifications. On August 10, 2005, FERC
issued an order delaying the implementation of a LICAP market
from January 1, 2006 until October 1, 2006, and, in
subsequent orders, assigned the proceeding to a settlement judge
and required the commencement of settlement negotiations.
On January 31, 2006, the settlement judge reported to FERC
that an agreement had been reached that provides for interim
capacity payments for all generators in New England and the
establishment of a forward
222
procurement market design. The settlement includes over 100
parties, including suppliers, load-serving entities, state
regulators, and ISO-NE. The settlement is not final and,
moreover, it is not unanimous, and thus there is some
possibility of continued litigation regarding LICAP and/or the
settlement proposal. NRG supports the settlement in principle,
and will continue to work to finalize the settlement. For our
Connecticut units subject to the Settlement RMR Agreements, any
transition payment will be credited against the monthly
availability payment for those units, resulting in no additional
revenues for those units. Our other New England generation units
are expected to be eligible for the transition payments, and
thus we expect the transition period to be net positive as
compared to the status quo. The forward procurement market
concept, when implemented, should provide a competitive market
price for all our capacity, while enhancing opportunities for
NRG to competitively repower its New England facilities.
On September 12, 2005, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General
for the state of Connecticut, the Connecticut Office of Consumer
Counsel, the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative
and the Connecticut Industrial Energy Consumers filed a
complaint against ISO-NE pursuant to sections 206 and 212 of the
Federal Power Act, seeking to amend the ISO-NEs Market
Rule 1 to require all electric generation facilities not
currently operating under an RMR agreement in Connecticut to be
placed under
cost-of-service rates.
On October 20, 2005, NRG, among others, filed an answer
requesting that the Commission dismiss the complaint. NRGs
Connecticut Jet Power and Norwalk facilities are not currently
operating pursuant to an RMR agreement.
NRGs New York City generation is presently subject to
price mitigation in the installed capacity market. When the
capacity market is tight, the price NRG receives is capped by
the mitigation price. However when the New York City capacity
market is not tight, such as during the winter season, the
proposed demand curve price levels should increase revenues from
capacity sales over revenues obtained in previous capacity
markets. On January 7, 2005, NYISO filed its proposed
installed capacity, or ICAP, demand curves for the following
capacity years: 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. On April 21,
2005, FERC accepted the NYISOs proposed demand curves,
with certain minor revisions. Based upon NYISOs
May 20, 2005 compliance filing, the monthly reference point
for the demand curve is $14.34 per KW/month of ICAP for the
2006-207 capacity year. Following the New York State Reliability
Councils, or NYSRC, report on the ICAP requirement for
2006-2007, on February 9, 2006, NYISO raised the New York
City location capacity requirement to 83% from 80%. The existing
in-city mitigation measures, however, will continue to apply to
us when the capacity market is tight, preventing us from
obtaining these higher prices.
On October 6, 2005, NiMo filed a complaint against NYISO
and the NYSRC requesting that FERC direct the NYSRC to modify
its methodology for calculating the statewide installed reserve
margin. NiMos complaint also alleges that the NYISO
incorrectly calculates the installed capacity requirement. FERC
issued an order on February 2, 2006, denying NiMos
complaint and directing that the NiMO work with NYISO and NYSRC
to modify its methodology for calculating the statewide
Installed Reserve Margin.
The dispute is continuing with respect to high prices for
spinning reserves, or SRs, and non-spinning reserves, or NSR, in
the NYISO-administered markets during the period from January 29
to March 27, 2000. Certain entities have argued that the
NYISO acted unreasonably is declining to invoke Temporary
Extraordinary Operating Procedures, or TEPs, to recalculate
prices and the markets should be resettled for various reasons.
In a series of orders, FERC declined to grant the requested
relief. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit, or DC Circuit, remanded the case to FERC to further
explain its decision not to utilize TEP to remedy certain market
issues. On March 4, 2005, FERC issued an order reaffirming
that (i) the NYISO acted reasonably in not invoking its
TEP, (ii) NYISO did not violate its tariff, and
(3) refunds should not be granted, and this order was
reaffirmed on rehearing on November 17, 2005. These orders
have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
223
A similar dispute remains with respect to high prices in the
NYISO energy market on May 8 and 9, 2000 Those high prices
resulted from bids submitted by the New York Power Authority for
its Blenheim-Gilboa facility, a pumped storage unit. Certain
parties have challenged NYISOs issuance of an Energy
Limited Resources Extraordinary Corrective Action utilizing its
TEP authority to reduce the prices and complained to FERC
requesting NYISO restore the original real-time market prices.
The Commission denied the complaints. On appeal, the D.C.
Circuit found that FERC had not adequately addressed the
complainants contention that there was no Market Design
Flaw that forced NYPA to submit high bids for Blenheim-Gilboa
facility and remanded the case to FERC. In its March 4,
2005 order on remand, FERC found that NYISOs tariff did
not contain a market design flaw, a necessary prerequisite to
invoking TEP. FERC therefore ordered NYISO to pay refunds and
collect surcharges designed to reinstate the original market
clearing prices for energy for the real-time market determined
on May 8 and 9, 2000, and to file a refund report; this
order was reaffirmed on rehearing. These orders have been
appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Also on rehearing, the Commission
set for settlement and hearing proceedings the issues raised as
to the amount of refunds and the means by which NYISO may
determine them (i.e., the calculation of the refund amount), the
determination of opportunity costs, and the determination and
treatment of amounts that the NYISO may be unable to collect
from its customers,
On December 9, 2005, NYISO submitted proposed revisions to
its tariff to include negotiated compensation provisions for
existing generators providing Black Start and System
Restoration Services (Black Start and System Restoration
Services) in the Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc.s, or ConEd, transmission district. NRGs Arthur
Kill and Astoria Gas Turbine facilities provide such blackstart
services and NRG supports NYISOs filing. On
January 27, 2006, FERC issued a deficiency letter requiring
NYISO to provide additional cost support for its filing.
The rate that the NRG generation facilities in New York are
currently paid for voltage support service, or VSS, was
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. On
December 5, 2005, the NYISO filed for an extension of the
VSS rate for a period of 120 days (from January 1 to
April 4, 2006). On December 30, 2005, FERC issued an
order accepting the NYISOs proposed extension, subject to
refund, and referring the proceeding to the FERCs Dispute
Resolution Service. Settlement discussions are ongoing.
On August 31, 2005, PJM filed a proposed reliability
pricing model, or RPM, that, if accepted by FERC, would modify
the capacity obligations imposed on load, and related market
mechanisms within PJM. The primary features of the RPM proposal
are the establishment of locational capacity markets using a
downward-sloping demand curve similar to the demand curve model
adopted in New York; a four-year-forward commitment of capacity
resources; establishing separate obligations and auction
procurement mechanisms for quick start and load following
resources; allowing certain planned resources, transmission
upgrades and demand resources to compete with existing
generation resources to satisfy capacity requirements; and
market power mitigation rules (which are primarily applied to
existing generation resources, such as NRGs). On
October 19, 2005, NRG filed an intervention and protest in
response to the PJM RPM proposal. On December 8, 2005, FERC
issued a notice establishing a technical conference on the
issues raised by PJMs RPM filing which was conducted on
February 2, 2006. The outcome of this proceeding is not
possible to predict with certainty, nor is the timing of any
implementation of PJMs proposed RPM model.
On November 16, 2005, PJM filed a comprehensive settlement
agreement establishing new scarcity pricing rules for the PJM
markets, as well as clarifying the circumstances of when
suppliers will be subject to offer caps with respect to
transmission constraints. The settlement agreement addresses
certain issues involving the mitigation of market power that may
result from congestion in PJMs service territory,
provisions for scarcity pricing, increased payments to
frequently mitigated units, and competitive issues surrounding
certain of PJMs internal interfaces. NRGs facilities
may be located in the scarcity pricing regions, and furthermore,
are mitigated a high percentage of the time and thus may be
impacted by these changes. The settlement agreement and related
tariff provisions were accepted by FERC effective
January 26, 2006.
224
On January 3, 2005, Entergy submitted a petition for
declaratory order requesting guidance on issues associated with
its proposal to establish an independent coordinator of
transmission, or ICT. Entergy requested FERCs guidance on
whether the functions to be performed by the ICT will cause it
to become a public utility under the Federal Power Act or the
transmission provider under Entergys Open Access
Transmission Tariff, or OATT, and whether Entergys
transmission pricing proposal satisfies FERCs transmission
pricing policy.
On March 22, 2005, FERC granted Entergys Petition for
declaratory order, stating that the implementation of the ICT
proposal on an experimental basis will permit a transmission
decision-making process that is independent of control by any
market participant or class of participants. On May 23,
2005, FERC issued an order granting rehearing for further
consideration but has not yet acted on rehearing. On
May 27, 2005, Entergy submitted a Section 205 filing
detailing the enhanced functions that the ICT will perform.
Numerous interventions and protests were filed in response, a
technical conference has been held and the proceeding is ongoing.
NRG has negotiated RMR agreements with the Cal ISO for one-year
terms for all of the WCP capacity. NRG has filed these RMR
agreements with FERC, with an effective date of January 1,
2006, for each of our Encina and Cabrillo II plants, and
these RMR agreements have been accepted by FERC. Unit 4 was not
designated by Cal ISO as RMR unit for 2006 until
December 22, 2005, and its RMR agreement was accepted
separately by FERC on February 14, 2006. MML Energy North
America, LLC protested the RMR agreement for Unit 4 by Cal ISO
and has requested rehearing of the order. Cal ISO did not
designate the El Segundo plant as an RMR for 2006. A tolling
agreement for the total capacity of the El Segundo plant has
been executed with a major load serving entity for the period
May 2006 through April 2008.
All of our California plants are subject to FERCs
must-offer requirements requiring any generator
capable of operating and not subject to a bilateral agreement to
make its capacity available to Cal ISO. On January 13,
2006, FERC accepted Cal ISOs proposal to increase the
softcap from $250 to $400 per MWh effective
January 1, 2006, and declined to convert the softcap to a
firm price-cap.
|
|
Note 27 |
Environmental Matters |
The construction and operation of power projects are subject to
stringent environmental and safety protection and land use laws
and regulation in the U.S. If such laws and regulations
become more stringent, or new laws, interpretations or
compliance policies apply and our facilities are not exempted
from coverage, we could be required to make extensive
modifications to further reduce potential environmental impacts.
In general, the effect of future laws or regulations is expected
to require the addition of pollution control equipment or the
imposition of restrictions on our operations.
Under various federal, state and local environmental laws and
regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of any
facility may be required to investigate and remediate releases
or threatened releases of hazardous or toxic substances or
petroleum products located at the facility, and may be held
liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property
damage, personal injury and investigation and remediation costs
incurred by the party in connection with any releases or
threatened releases. These laws impose strict (without fault)
and joint and several liability. The cost of investigation,
remediation or removal of any hazardous or toxic substances or
petroleum products could be substantial. On January 18,
2006, NRG Indian River Operations, Inc. received a letter of
informal notification from DNREC stating that it may be a
potentially responsible party with respect to the Burton Island
Landfill, along with Delmarva Power. The letter signals only
that an investigation is to be commenced and is not a conclusive
determination. Further, the Burton Island Landfill is a site
that would potentially qualify for a remedy under a
Voluntary Cleanup Program or VCP. We have signaled
our interest in being considered for a VCP should matters
progress. With the exception of the foregoing, NRG has not been
named as a potentially responsible party with respect to any
off-site waste disposal matter.
225
As part of acquiring existing generating assets, we have
inherited certain environmental liabilities associated with
regulatory compliance and site contamination. Often potential
compliance implementation plans are changed, delayed or
abandoned due to one or more of the following conditions:
(a) extended negotiations with regulatory agencies,
(b) a delay in promulgating rules critical to dictating the
design of expensive control systems, (c) changes in
governmental/regulatory personnel, (d) changes in the
interpretation and enforcement of existing laws and regulations,
(e) changes in governmental priorities or
(f) selection of a less expensive compliance option than
originally envisioned.
Trust funds during our period of bankruptcy
as well as inherited circumstances in our South Central region,
we deposited approximately $20 million in trust funds to
maintain financial assurance to cover costs associated with a
number of future remediation items. Our Northeast region has a
total of approximately $15 million in trust funds and our
South Central has approximately $5 million in trust funds
as described in the discussions below.
Northeast Region. Significant amounts of ash are
contained in landfills at on and off-site locations. At Dunkirk,
Huntley, Somerset and Indian River, ash is disposed of at
landfills owned and operated by NRG. NRG maintains financial
assurance to cover costs associated with landfill closure,
post-closure care and monitoring activities. NRG has funded a
trust in the amount of approximately $6 million to provide
such financial assurance in New York and approximately
$7 million in Delaware. NRG must also maintain financial
assurance for closing interim status RCRA (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act) facilities at the Devon,
Middletown, Montville and Norwalk Harbor Generating Stations and
has funded a trust in the amount of approximately
$2 million accordingly.
NRG inherited historical
clean-up liabilities
when it acquired the Somerset, Devon, Middletown, Montville,
Norwalk Harbor, Arthur Kill and Astoria Generating Stations.
During installation of a sound wall at Somerset Station in 2003,
oil contaminated soil was encountered. NRG has delineated the
general extent of contamination, determined it to be minimal,
and has placed an activity use limitation on that section of the
property. Site contamination liabilities arising under the
Connecticut Transfer Act at the Devon, Middletown, Montville and
Norwalk Harbor Stations have been identified. NRG has proposed a
remedial action plan to be implemented over the next two to
eight years (depending on the station) to address historical ash
contamination at the facilities. The total estimated cost is not
expected to exceed $1.4 million. Remedial obligations at
the Arthur Kill generating station have been established in
discussions between NRG and the NYSDEC and are estimated to be
approximately $1 million. Remedial investigations continue
at the Astoria generating station with long-term
clean-up liability
expected to be approximately $3 million. While installing
groundwater-monitoring wells at Astoria to track our remediation
of an historical fuel oil spill, the drilling contractor
encountered deposits of coal tar in two borings. NRG reported
the coal tar discovery to the NYSDEC in 2003 and delineated the
extent of this contamination. NRG may also be required to
remediate the coal tar contamination and/or record a deed
restriction on the property if significant contamination is to
remain in place.
In September 2001, we experienced an underground fuel line leak
at our Vienna Generating Station, resulting in a small release
of oil free product, which was contained. NRG promptly reported
the event to the relevant state agencies and continues to work
with the Maryland Department of the Environment, or DEP, to
develop any remediation requirements. Ongoing monitoring has
indicated that the product is stable. NRG submitted a site
assessment report and proposed remediation plan to Maryland DEP
but the agency has not formally responded to those documents.
Based upon work completed by a remediation contractor retained
by NRG, long-term clean up liability in connection with this
matter is not expected to exceed $1 million.
We currently estimate that we will incur total environmental
capital expenditures of approximately $367 million during
2006 through 2011 for the facilities in New York, Connecticut,
Delaware and Massachusetts. These expenditures will be primarily
related to installation of particulate,
SO2
and NOX controls, as well as installation of BTA under the
Phase II 316(b) Rule.
226
South Central Region. Liabilities associated with
closure, post-closure care and monitoring of the ash ponds owned
and operated on site at the Big Cajun II Generating Station
are addressed through the use of a trust fund maintained by NRG
in the amount of approximately $5 million. Annual payments
are made to the fund in the amount of approximately
$0.1 million.
We currently estimate approximately $252 million of capital
expenditures will be incurred during the period 2006 through
2011 for our South Central facilities, primarily related to
installation of particulate,
SO2
and NOx controls, as well as studies for installation of BTA
under the Phase II 316(b) Rule.
Western Region. The Asset Purchase Agreements for the
Long Beach, El Segundo, Encina, and San Diego gas turbine
generating facilities provide that SCE and San Diego
Gas & Electric or SDG&E, as sellers retain
liability, and indemnify NRG, for existing soil and groundwater
contamination that exceeds remedial thresholds in place at the
time of closing. NRG and its business partner identified
existing contamination and provided the results to the sellers.
SCE and SDG&E agreed to address this identified
contamination and are undertaking corrective action at the
Encina and San Diego gas turbine generating sites. NRG
could incur related costs if SCE and SDG&E did not complete
their corrective action responsibilities. Spills and releases of
various substances have occurred at these sites since NRG
established the historical baseline, all of which have been, or
will be, completely remediated. An oil leak in 2002 from
underground piping at the El Segundo Generating Station
contaminated soils adjacent to and underneath the Unit 1 and 2
powerhouse. NRG excavated and disposed of contaminated soils to
the greatest extent permitted by existing laws. Following
NRGs formal request, the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board agreed to allow the remaining contaminated
soils to stay underneath the building foundation until the
building is demolished.
A diesel fuel spill to
on-site surface
containment occurred at the Cabrillo Power II LLC Kearny
Combustion Turbine facility (San Diego) in February 2003.
Emergency response and subsequent remediation activities were
completed. Confirmation sampling for the site was completed in
2004 and submitted to the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health. Three San Diego Combustion Turbine
facilities, formerly operating pursuant to land leases with the
U.S. Navy, are currently being decommissioned with
equipment being removed from the sites and remediation
activities occurring where necessary. All remedial activities
are being completed pursuant to the requirements of the
U.S. Navy and the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health. Remediation activities were completed in
2004 at the Naval Training Center and North Island facilities.
At the 32nd Street Naval Station facility, additional
contamination delineation is necessary and additional
un-quantified remediation in inaccessible areas may be required
in the future. Given the current uncertainties at this facility,
it is difficult to accurately estimate the resultant clean up
liability.
Resource Recovery. Liabilities associated with closure,
post-closure care and monitoring of the Becker refuse derived
fuel ash landfill are addressed through the use of a letter of
credit maintained by NRG in the amount of approximately
$3 million.
227
|
|
Note 28 |
Cash Flow Information |
Detail of supplemental disclosures of cash flow and non-cash
investing and financing information was:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor | |
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
Company | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
For the Period | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
December 6 - | |
|
|
January 1 - | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 5, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Interest paid (net of amount capitalized)
|
|
$ |
257 |
|
|
$ |
295 |
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
|
$ |
182 |
|
Income taxes paid
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
Non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in WCP by contributing fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction to fixed assets due to liquidated damages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addition to fixed assets due to conditional asset retirement
obligations
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of accrued salaries to stockholders equity
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addition to treasury stock for the maximum purchase price
adjustment
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued deferred acquisition costs
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 29 |
Guarantees and Other Contingent Liabilities |
In November 2002, the FASB issued FIN 45. In connection
with the adoption of Fresh Start, all outstanding guarantees
were considered new; accordingly, we applied the provisions of
FIN 45 to all of the guarantees.
We and our subsidiaries enter into various contracts that
include indemnification and guarantee provisions as a routine
part of our business activities. Examples of these contracts
include asset purchase and sale agreements, commodity sale and
purchase agreements, joint venture agreements, operations and
maintenance agreements, service agreements, settlement
agreements, and other types of contractual agreements with
vendors and other third parties. These contracts generally
indemnify the counter-party for tax, environmental liability,
litigation and other matters, as well as breaches of
representations, warranties and covenants set forth in these
agreements. In many cases, our maximum potential liability
cannot be estimated, since some of the underlying agreements
contain no limits on potential liability. In accordance with
FIN 45, we estimated that the current fair value for
issuing these guarantees is approximately $15 million as of
December 31, 2005 and the liability in this amount is
included in our other long term obligations.
The material guarantees, within the scope of FIN 45, are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Standby letters of credit and surety bonds At
December 31, 2005, we and our consolidated subsidiaries
were contingently obligated for a total of approximately
$321 million under standby letters of credit. Most of these
letters of credit are issued in support of our obligations to
perform under commodity agreements, financing or other
arrangements. These letters of credit expire within one year of
issuance, and it is typical for us to renew many of them on
similar terms. |
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2005, standby letters of credit in
amounts totaling approximately $312 million were issued
under our $350.0 million corporate funded letter of credit
facility, which is reflected in our financial statements. Of
this amount, approximately $3 million was issued to support
performance obligations of an unconsolidated affiliate of ours.
Our Flinders subsidiary had issued approximately |
228
|
|
|
AUD 12 million (approximately US $9 million) in
unfunded letters of credit under an AUD 20 million
(approximately US $15 million) working capital and
letter of credit facility, described in Note 17
Debt and Capital Leases. |
|
|
At December 31, 2005, we were also contingently obligated
for approximately $4 million under surety bonds to support
our prepayment, completion, license, tax or performance bonding
requirements. Most of the bonds are supported by a letter of
credit under our funded letter of credit facility, which is
reflected in our financial statements. All of the bonds expire
within one year; however, we expect to renew many of these bonds
on a rolling twelve-month basis. |
|
|
|
|
|
Asset purchases and divestitures In the
normal course of business, we may be asked to provide certain
assurances to the counter-parties of our asset sale and purchase
agreements. Such assurances may take the form of a guarantee
issued by us on behalf of a directly or indirectly held
majority-owned subsidiary who included certain indemnifications
to a third party (usually the buyer) as described below. Due to
the inter-company nature of such arrangements (NRG Energy is
essentially guaranteeing its own performance) and the nature of
the guarantee being provided (usually the typical
representations and warranties that are provided in any asset
sales agreement), it is not our policy to recognize the value of
such an obligation in our consolidated financial statements.
Most of these guarantees provide an explicit cap on our maximum
liability, as well as an expiration period, exclusive of breach
of representations and warranties. |
|
|
|
On April 1, 2005, in conjunction with the sale of our
interest in the Enfield Energy Center Ltd, a minority-owned,
indirectly held affiliate of ours, we issued a guarantee of the
obligations of a subsidiary of ours under the sale and purchase
agreement, to the buyers of our interest. The maximum liability
for this guarantee was approximately $56 million as of
December 31, 2005. |
|
|
At December 31, 2005, our maximum known exposure under
asset purchase or sales guarantees was approximately
$123 million. On January 1, 2006, we executed a
guarantee to a prospective buyer of one of our unconsolidated
affiliates. This guarantees the payment of claims related to tax
obligations, late payments, and indemnifications, and the
maximum liability we estimate under this guarantee is
approximately $5 million. This guarantee expires on
October 1, 2016. Upon the defeasance of $0.4 million
of our Second Priority Notes on February 2, 2006, we
retained guarantee obligations related to this indebtedness. For
further information, see Note 17 Debt and
Capital Leases. |
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial sales arrangements In connection
with the purchase and sale of fuel, emission allowances and
power generation products to and from third parties with respect
to the operation of some of our generation facilities in the
U.S., we may be required to guarantee a portion of the
obligations of certain of our subsidiaries. These obligations
may include liquidated damages payments or other unscheduled
payments. As of December 31, 2005, we estimate the maximum
liability for this category of guarantee was approximately
$91 million. We have subsequently issued additional
guarantees or increased existing guarantees of the performance
of NRG PMI, with increasing the maximum liability by
approximately $19 million. These additional guarantees
terminate between December 31, 2006 and December 31,
2008. |
|
|
|
Other types of guarantees We have issued
guarantees of obligations our subsidiaries may incur in
provision of environmental site remediation, payment of debt
obligations, rail car leases and performance under operating and
maintenance agreements. Maximum quantifiable liability under the
environmental guarantees is approximately $64 million, most
of which is a guarantee for plant removal and site remediation
obligations at our Flinders facilities. The maximum quantifiable
exposure under the operational guarantees is $25 million,
primarily related to our role as operator at the Gladstone power
plant. In addition, we have a maximum liability exposure of
approximately $1 million under a tax indemnity guarantee to
a third party and third-party debt guarantee exposure of
approximately $1 million. |
229
|
|
|
On February 18, 2005 we executed a guarantee to the benefit
of our counter-party under a railcar lease. We guarantee the
performance and payment obligations of NRG PMI under the railcar
lease. Payment obligations include future rental and termination
payments, which are estimated to total approximately
$48 million over the next five years of the lease, and
approximately $46 million over the remainder of the lease,
should we elect not to exercise our termination rights. If we do
elect to terminate the lease, we will be required to pay
$8 million in termination fees, but we will have no
obligation to make future lease payments. However, our
obligations under this guarantee include additional requirements
that would be difficult to quantify until such time as a claim
were made. As a result, our maximum potential obligation under
this guarantee is of indeterminate exposure, and therefore is
not included in the table of maximum exposure maturities in this
note. |
The following table outlines the scheduled expiration of our
guarantees, indemnity and other contingent liability
obligations, to the extent the maximum liabilities can be
quantified and scheduled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of Guarantee Liabilities Expiration per Period as of | |
|
|
December 31, 2005 (in millions) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Total Amounts | |
|
|
|
After 5 Years or | |
Guarantee Type |
|
Committed | |
|
Short-term | |
|
2-3 Years | |
|
4-5 Years | |
|
Indeterminate | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Funded standby letters of credit
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Unfunded standby letters of credit
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surety bonds
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset sales guarantee obligations
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110 |
|
Commodity sales guarantee obligations
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Other guarantees
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total guarantees
|
|
$ |
630 |
|
|
$ |
387 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The material indemnities, within the scope of FIN 45, are
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Asset purchases and divestitures The purchase
and sale agreements which govern our asset or share investments
and divestitures customarily contain indemnifications of the
transaction to third parties. The contracts indemnify the
parties for liabilities incurred as a result of a breach of a
representation or warranty by the indemnifying party, or as a
result of a change in tax laws. These obligations generally have
a discrete term and are intended to protect the parties against
risks that are difficult to predict or quantify at the time of
the transaction. In several cases, the contract limits the
liability of the indemnifier. For those indemnities in which
liability is capped, the exposure ranges from $250 thousand up
to $50 million. We have no reason to believe that we
currently have any material liability relating to such routine
indemnification obligations. |
|
|
|
Other indemnities Other indemnifications we
have provided cover operational, tax, litigation and breaches of
representations, warranties and covenants. We have also
indemnified, on a routine basis in the ordinary course of
business, consultants or other vendors who have provided
services to us. Our maximum potential exposure under these
indemnifications can range from a specified dollar amount to an
unlimited amount, depending on the nature of the transaction.
Total maximum potential exposure under these indemnifications is
not estimable due to uncertainty as to whether claims will be
made or how they will be resolved. We do not have any reason to
believe that we will be required to make any material payments
under these indemnity provisions. |
Because many of the guarantees and indemnities we issue to third
parties do not limit the amount or duration of our obligations
to perform under them, there exists a risk that we may have
obligations in excess of the amounts described above. For those
guarantees and indemnities that do not limit our liability
exposure, we may not be able to estimate what our liability
would be, until a claim was made for payment or performance, due
to the contingent nature of these contracts.
230
|
|
Note 30 |
Sales to Significant Customers |
For the year ended December 31, 2005 we derived
approximately 50.2% of total revenues for majority owned
operations from two customers: NYISO accounted for 35.6% and
ISO-NE accounted for 14.6%. We account for the revenues
attributable to these customers as part of our Northeast segment.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we derived
approximately 37.8% of our total revenues from majority-owned
operations from two customers. NYISO accounted for 28.6% and ISO
New England accounted for 9.2%. We account for these revenues
attributable to NYISO and ISO New England as part of our
Northeast segment.
For the period December 6, 2003 through December 31,
2003, we derived approximately 39.4% of our total revenues from
majority-owned operations from two customers: NYISO accounted
for 26.8% and ISO New England accounted for 12.6%. Revenues from
NYISO and ISO New England are included in our Northeast segment.
For the period from January 1, 2003 through
December 5, 2003, sales to one customer, NYISO, accounted
for 33.4% of our total revenues from majority-owned operations.
Note 31 Jointly Owned Plants
On March 31, 2000, we acquired a 58% interest in the Big
Cajun II, Unit 3 generation plant. Entergy Gulf States owns
the remaining 42%. Big Cajun II, Unit 3 is operated and
maintained by Louisiana Generating pursuant to a joint ownership
participation and operating agreement. Under this agreement,
Louisiana Generating and Entergy Gulf States are each entitled
to their ownership percentage of the hourly net electrical
output of Big Cajun II, Unit 3. All fixed costs are shared
in proportion to the ownership interests. All variable costs are
incurred in proportion to the energy delivered to the owners.
Our income statement includes its share of all fixed and
variable costs of operating the unit.
Our 58% share of the property, plant and equipment at
December 31, 2005 and 2004 was approximately
$186 million and $185 million, respectively (included
in this amount is construction in progress was $3 million
and $2 million, respectively), and the corresponding
accumulated depreciation and amortization was approximately
$22 million and $12 million, respectively.
In June 2001, we completed the acquisition of an approximately
3.7% interest in both the Keystone and Conemaugh coal-fired
generating facilities. The Keystone and Conemaugh facilities are
located near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and are jointly owned by a
consortium of energy companies. We purchased our interest from
Conectiv, Inc. Keystone and Conemaugh are operated by GPU
Generation, Inc., which sold its assets and operating
responsibilities to Sithe Energies. Keystone and Conemaugh both
consist of two operational coal-fired steam power units with a
combined net output of 1,700 MW, four diesel units with a
combined net output of 11 MW and an
on-site landfill. The
units are operated pursuant to a joint ownership participation
and operating agreement. Under this agreement each joint owner
is entitled to its ownership ratio of the net available output
of the facility. All fixed costs are shared in proportion to the
ownership interests. All variable costs are incurred in
proportion to the energy delivered to the owners. Our income
statement includes our share of all fixed and variable costs of
operating the facilities.
231
Our 3.70% and 3.72% share of the Keystone and Conemaugh
facilities original cost included in property, plant and
equipment at December 31, 2005 was approximately
$59 million and $71 million, respectively (included in
this amount is construction in progress in the amount of
$1 million and $0 million, respectively). The
corresponding accumulated depreciation and amortization at
December 31, 2005 for Keystone and Conemaugh was
approximately $6 million and $8 million, respectively.
Our 3.70% and 3.72% share of the Keystone and Conemaugh
facilities property, plant and equipment at December 31,
2004 was approximately $59 million and $71 million,
respectively. The corresponding accumulated depreciation and
amortization at December 31, 2004 for Keystone and
Conemaugh was approximately $3 million and $4 million,
respectively.
Note 32 Unaudited Quarterly Financial
Data
Summarized quarterly unaudited financial data is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Quarters Ended 2005 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
March 31 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
Total Year | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per share data) | |
Operating Revenues
|
|
$ |
597 |
|
|
$ |
579 |
|
|
$ |
762 |
|
|
$ |
770 |
|
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
Operating Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
Income From Continuing Operations
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
Income/(Loss) on Discontinued Operations net of Income Taxes
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
Net Income/(Loss)
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
(27 |
) |
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
Basic
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
Income From Continuing Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Basic
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
$ |
(0.51 |
) |
|
$ |
0.79 |
|
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
Income/(Loss) From Discontinued Operations per Weighted Average
Common Share Basic
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.12 |
|
|
|
(0.07 |
) |
|
|
0.09 |
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Share Basic
|
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
$ |
0.23 |
|
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
$ |
0.72 |
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
Diluted
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
Income From Continuing Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
(0.51 |
) |
|
$ |
0.74 |
|
|
$ |
0.66 |
|
Income From Discontinued Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Diluted
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.12 |
|
|
|
(0.06 |
) |
|
|
0.09 |
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Share Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
$ |
0.68 |
|
|
$ |
0.75 |
|
232
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Quarters Ended 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
March 31 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
Total Year | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per share data) | |
Operating Revenues
|
|
$ |
596 |
|
|
$ |
570 |
|
|
$ |
605 |
|
|
$ |
577 |
|
|
$ |
2,348 |
|
Operating Income
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
393 |
|
Income From Continuing Operations
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
Income/(Loss) on Discontinued Operations net of Income Taxes
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
Basic
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
Income From Continuing Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Basic
|
|
$ |
0.31 |
|
|
$ |
0.69 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
1.61 |
|
Income/(Loss) From Discontinued Operations per Weighted Average
Common Share Basic
|
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
|
0.10 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Share Basic
|
|
$ |
0.30 |
|
|
$ |
0.83 |
|
|
$ |
0.54 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
$ |
1.86 |
|
Weighted Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
Diluted
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
Income From Continuing Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.31 |
|
|
$ |
0.69 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
1.60 |
|
Income From Discontinued Operations per Weighted Average Common
Share Diluted
|
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
|
0.10 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Share Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.30 |
|
|
$ |
0.83 |
|
|
$ |
0.54 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
$ |
1.85 |
|
For 2005 and for 2004, we have reclassified the financial
results of Northbrook New York LLC, Northbrook Energy LLC and
Audrain as discontinued operations. Accordingly, 2005 and 2004
quarterly results have been restated to report the results as
discontinued.
233
Note 33 Condensed Consolidating Financial
Information
As of December 31, 2005, we have $1.08 billion of
Second Priority Notes outstanding. The Second Priority Notes are
guaranteed by each of current and future wholly-owned domestic
subsidiaries, or Guarantor Subsidiaries. Each of the following
Guarantor Subsidiaries fully and unconditionally guarantee the
Second Priority Notes.
|
|
|
Arthur Kill Power LLC
|
|
NRG Cabrillo Power Operations Inc. |
Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC
|
|
NRG Cadillac Operations Inc. |
Berrians I Gas Turbine Power LLC
|
|
NRG California Peaker Operations LLC |
Big Cajun II Unit 4 LLC
|
|
NRG Connecticut Affiliate Services Inc. |
Capistrano Cogeneration Company
|
|
NRG Devon Operations Inc. |
Chickahominy River Energy Corp.
|
|
NRG Dunkirk Operations Inc. |
Commonwealth Atlantic Power LLC
|
|
NRG El Segundo Operations Inc. |
Conemaugh Power LLC
|
|
NRG Huntley Operations Inc. |
Connecticut Jet Power LLC
|
|
NRG International LLC |
Devon Power LLC
|
|
NRG Kaufman LLC |
Dunkirk Power LLC
|
|
NRG Mesquite LLC |
Eastern Sierra Energy Company
|
|
NRG MidAtlantic Affiliate Services Inc. |
El Segundo Power II LLC
|
|
NRG Middletown Operations Inc. |
Hanover Energy Company
|
|
NRG Montville Operations Inc. |
Huntley Power LLC
|
|
NRG New Jersey Energy Sales LLC |
Indian River Operations Inc.
|
|
NRG New Roads Holdings LLC |
Indian River Power LLC
|
|
NRG North Central Operations Inc. |
James River Power LLC
|
|
NRG Northeast Affiliate Services Inc. |
Kaufman Cogen LP
|
|
NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations Inc. |
Keystone Power LLC
|
|
NRG Operating Services, Inc. |
Louisiana Generating LLC
|
|
NRG Oswego Harbor Power Operations Inc. |
Middletown Power LLC
|
|
NRG Power Marketing Inc. |
Montville Power LLC
|
|
NRG Rocky Road LLC |
NEO California Power LLC
|
|
NRG Saguaro Operations Inc. |
NEO Chester-Gen LLC
|
|
NRG South Central Affiliate Services Inc. |
NEO Corporation
|
|
NRG South Central Generating LLC |
NEO Freehold-Gen LLC
|
|
NRG South Central Operations Inc. |
NEO Landfill Gas Holdings Inc.
|
|
NRG West Coast LLC |
NEO Power Services Inc.
|
|
NRG Western Affiliate Services Inc. |
Norwalk Power LLC
|
|
Oswego Harbor Power LLC |
NRG Affiliate Services Inc.
|
|
Saguaro Power LLC |
NRG Arthur Kill Operations Inc.
|
|
Somerset Operations Inc. |
NRG Asia-Pacific, Ltd.
|
|
Somerset Power LLC |
NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Operations, Inc.
|
|
Vienna Operations Inc. |
NRG Bayou Cove LLC
|
|
Vienna Power LLC |
The Second Priority Notes noted above were replaced on
February 2, 2006 with new Senior Unsecured Notes which are
described in Note 34Subsequent Events. All of the
Guarantor Subsidiaries listed above except for El Segundo
Power II LLC, fully and unconditionally guarantee the new
Senior Unsecured Notes.
The non-guarantor subsidiaries, or Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries,
include all of our foreign subsidiaries and certain domestic
subsidiaries. We conduct much of our business through and derive
much of our income
234
from our subsidiaries. Therefore, our ability to make required
payments with respect to our indebtedness and other obligations
depends on the financial results and condition of our
subsidiaries and our ability to receive funds from our
subsidiaries. Except for NRG Bayou Cove, LLC, which is subject
to certain restrictions under our Peaker financing agreements,
there are no restrictions on the ability of any of the Guarantor
Subsidiaries to transfer funds to us. In addition, there may be
restrictions for certain Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries.
The following condensed consolidating financial information
presents the financial information of NRG Energy, Inc., the
Guarantor Subsidiaries and the Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries in
accordance with Rule 3-10 under the Securities and Exchange
Commissions
Regulation S-X.
The financial information may not necessarily be indicative of
results of operations or financial position had the Guarantor
Subsidiaries or Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries operated as
independent entities.
In this presentation, NRG Energy, Inc. consists of parent
company operations. Guarantor Subsidiaries and Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries of NRG are reported on an equity basis. For
companies acquired, the fair values of the assets and
liabilities acquired have been presented on a
push-down accounting basis.
235
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 2005
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from majority-owned operations
|
|
$ |
2,095 |
|
|
$ |
564 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
2,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of majority-owned operations
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
435 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
2,067 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
General, administrative and development
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
197 |
|
|
Other charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
1,778 |
|
|
|
517 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
2,470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
317 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
(126 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
274 |
|
|
|
(375 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
Write downs and gains/(losses) on sales of equity method
investments
|
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
62 |
|
|
Refinancing expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
(141 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income/(expense)
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
(375 |
) |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income
Taxes
|
|
|
421 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
(375 |
) |
|
|
120 |
|
Income Tax Expense
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(130 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income From Continuing Operations
|
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
(375 |
) |
|
|
77 |
|
Income on Discontinued Operations, net of Income Taxes
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
271 |
|
|
$ |
104 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
(375 |
) |
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
236
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
December 31, 2005
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
ASSETS |
Current Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
422 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
506 |
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
Accounts receivable-trade, net
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
284 |
|
|
Current portion of notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
468 |
|
|
|
(468 |
) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
Taxes receivable
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
232 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404 |
|
|
Collateral on deposit in support of energy risk management
activities
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
Assets held for sale
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
Current assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
1,342 |
|
|
|
521 |
|
|
|
802 |
|
|
|
(468 |
) |
|
|
2,197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,176 |
|
|
|
832 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,039 |
|
Other Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,774 |
|
|
|
(2,561 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
603 |
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
457 |
|
|
|
1,398 |
|
|
|
(1,473 |
) |
|
|
458 |
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
Funded letter of credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
Noncurrent assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other assets
|
|
|
1,384 |
|
|
|
1,240 |
|
|
|
3,605 |
|
|
|
(4,034 |
) |
|
|
2,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
4,902 |
|
|
$ |
2,593 |
|
|
$ |
4,438 |
|
|
$ |
(4,502 |
) |
|
$ |
7,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCK HOLDERS EQUITY |
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$ |
459 |
|
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
(468 |
) |
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
Accounts Payable
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
268 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
678 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
692 |
|
|
Other bankruptcy settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
Current liabilities discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
1,355 |
|
|
|
365 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
(468 |
) |
|
|
1,356 |
|
Other Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
1,397 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
1,866 |
|
|
|
(1,473 |
) |
|
|
2,581 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
Out-of-market contracts
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
Other long-term obligations
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
Non-current liabilities discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current liabilities
|
|
|
1,883 |
|
|
|
1,330 |
|
|
|
1,857 |
|
|
|
(1,473 |
) |
|
|
3,597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
3,238 |
|
|
|
1,695 |
|
|
|
1,961 |
|
|
|
(1,941 |
) |
|
|
4,953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
3.625% Preferred Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
|
Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
1,664 |
|
|
|
897 |
|
|
|
2,231 |
|
|
|
(2,561 |
) |
|
|
2,231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
$ |
4,902 |
|
|
$ |
2,593 |
|
|
$ |
4,438 |
|
|
$ |
(4,502 |
) |
|
$ |
7,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
237
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Year Ended December 31, 2005
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- | |
|
NRG Energy, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Guarantor | |
|
Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
271 |
|
|
$ |
104 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
(375 |
) |
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions in excess of (less than) equity earnings of
unconsolidated affiliates and consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
(352 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs and debt
discount/(premium)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
Write-off of deferred financing costs due to refinancing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
Unrealized (gains)/losses on derivatives
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Amortization of intangible assets
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
Amortization of unearned equity compensation
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
Loss on sale and disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
Gain on sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
Gain on TermRio settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
Collateral deposit payments in support of energy risk management
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
Cash provided by(used by) changes in other working capital, net
of dispositions affects
|
|
|
(421 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities
|
|
|
(213 |
) |
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
898 |
|
|
|
(727 |
) |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return of Capital from Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,398 |
|
|
|
(1,398 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Inter-company Loans (I/ C) to Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,181 |
) |
|
|
2,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from I/ C loans with parent and subsidiaries
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
(652 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
Return of capital/ (Investments) in projects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Decrease/(increase) in restricted cash
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
Deferred acquisition costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
Decrease/(increase) in notes receivable
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Investing Activities
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
(469 |
) |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return of Capital Payments to Parent
|
|
|
(1,398 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,398 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from Parent Inter-company Loans
|
|
|
2,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,181 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Payments for Parent Inter-company Loans
|
|
|
(325 |
) |
|
|
(327 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
652 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments of dividends
|
|
|
(704 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
727 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
Repayment of minority interest obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
Accelerated share repurchase payment, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
Issuance of 3.625% Preferred Stock, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(352 |
) |
|
|
(649 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,005 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Financing Activities
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
(457 |
) |
|
|
(719 |
) |
|
|
596 |
|
|
|
(830 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Change in Cash from Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(163 |
) |
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
(290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(598 |
) |
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
422 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation |
238
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 2004
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from majority-owned operations
|
|
$ |
1,722 |
|
|
$ |
582 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
2,348 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of majority-owned operations
|
|
|
1,060 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
1,489 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
General, administrative and development
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
Other charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate relocation charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
Impairment charges
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
1,316 |
|
|
|
524 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
1,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
293 |
|
|
|
(382 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
Write downs and gains/(losses) on sales of equity method
investments
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
27 |
|
|
Refinancing expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(266 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income/(expense)
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
(382 |
) |
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income
Taxes
|
|
|
578 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(382 |
) |
|
|
226 |
|
Income Tax Expense/(Benefit)
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations
|
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
(382 |
) |
|
|
161 |
|
Income/(Loss) on Discontinued Operations, net of Income Taxes
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
343 |
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
(382 |
) |
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
239
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
December 31, 2004
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy,Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
ASSETS |
Current Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
156 |
|
|
$ |
236 |
|
|
$ |
712 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
Accounts receivable-trade, net
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
Current portion of notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
85 |
|
|
Income taxes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
Prepayments and other current assets
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
136 |
|
|
Collateral on deposit in support of energy risk management
activities
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
Current assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
743 |
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
812 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
2,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,244 |
|
|
|
883 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,158 |
|
Other Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
777 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,916 |
|
|
|
(4,693 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
735 |
|
|
Notes receivable, less current portion, less reserve
|
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
797 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(642 |
) |
|
|
564 |
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
Funded letter of credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
Other non- current assets
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
Non-current assets discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other assets
|
|
|
1,806 |
|
|
|
1,790 |
|
|
|
4,326 |
|
|
|
(5,335 |
) |
|
|
2,587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
4,793 |
|
|
$ |
3,243 |
|
|
$ |
5,169 |
|
|
$ |
(5,341 |
) |
|
$ |
7,864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCK HOLDERS EQUITY |
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital leases
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
98 |
|
|
$ |
416 |
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
511 |
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(181 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
Other bankruptcy settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
166 |
|
|
Current liabilities discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
545 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
1,087 |
|
Other Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,487 |
|
|
|
2,128 |
|
|
|
(642 |
) |
|
|
2,973 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
Derivative instruments valuation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
Out-of-market contracts
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
187 |
|
|
Non-current liabilities discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current liabilities
|
|
|
409 |
|
|
|
2,112 |
|
|
|
2,205 |
|
|
|
(642 |
) |
|
|
4,084 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
954 |
|
|
|
2,387 |
|
|
|
2,477 |
|
|
|
(647 |
) |
|
|
5,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
3,839 |
|
|
|
855 |
|
|
|
2,692 |
|
|
|
(4,694 |
) |
|
|
2,692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
$ |
4,793 |
|
|
$ |
3,243 |
|
|
$ |
5,169 |
|
|
$ |
(5,341 |
) |
|
$ |
7,864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
240
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Year Ended December 31, 2004
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
343 |
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
(382 |
) |
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided
(used) by operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions in excess of (less than) equity earnings of
unconsolidated affiliates and consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
Reserve for note and interest receivable
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
Amortization of financing costs and debt discount/(premium)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
Write-off of deferred financing costs and debt premium
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Unrealized (gains)/losses on derivatives
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
Amortization of intangibles
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
Amortization of unearned equity compensation
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
Collateral deposit payments in support of energy risk management
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
Loss from sale and disposal of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(Gain)/loss on sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
Cash provided by provided (used) by changes in certain
working capital items, net of effects from acquisitions and
dispositions
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities
|
|
|
371 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
528 |
|
|
|
(376 |
) |
|
|
645 |
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
253 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of investments
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
Decrease/(increase) in restricted cash
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
Decrease/(increase) in notes receivable
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
Investments in projects
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
Distributions/(investments) in subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Investing Activities
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
184 |
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net borrowings under line of credit agreement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of preferred shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406 |
|
|
Payment for treasury stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
Capital contributions from parent
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends and return of investment to NRG Energy, Inc.
|
|
|
(407 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
1,304 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
1,333 |
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
Funded letter of credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(292 |
) |
|
|
(1,200 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(1,492 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Financing Activities
|
|
|
(438 |
) |
|
|
(276 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
451 |
|
|
|
(284 |
) |
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Change in Cash from Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
617 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
554 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
|
|
$ |
156 |
|
|
$ |
236 |
|
|
$ |
712 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
241
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Period December 6, 2003 Through
December 31, 2003
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from majority-owned operations
|
|
$ |
94 |
|
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of majority-owned operations
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
General, administrative and development
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Other Charges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income/(expense)
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income
Taxes
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
Income Tax Expense/(Benefit)
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
Income/(Loss) on Discontinued Operations, net of Income Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
242
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Period December 6, 2003 Through
December 31, 2003
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities Distributions in excess of (less than)
equity earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Amortization of debt discount/(premium)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
Current tax expense non cash contribution from
members
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gains)/losses on derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of intangibles
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
Collateral deposit payments in support of energy risk management
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) changes in certain working capital
items, net of effects from acquisitions and dispositions
|
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(533 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(597 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(542 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(589 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,531 |
) |
|
|
1,531 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease/(increase) in restricted cash
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
375 |
|
|
Decrease/(increase) in notes receivable
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Investments in projects
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Investing Activities
|
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(1,532 |
) |
|
|
1,543 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital contributions from parent
|
|
|
1,531 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,531 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,450 |
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
Funded letter of credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(1,714 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(1,732 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Financing Activities
|
|
|
(183 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
2,125 |
|
|
|
(1,543 |
) |
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
Change in Cash from Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
154 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
|
|
$ |
296 |
|
|
$ |
159 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
243
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Period January 1, 2003 Through December 5,
2003
Predecessor Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from majority-owned operations
|
|
$ |
1,230 |
|
|
$ |
522 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
1,798 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of majority-owned operations
|
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1,354 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
General, administrative and development
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
Other Charges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganization charges
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198 |
|
|
|
Impairment charges
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
(123 |
) |
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
Fresh start reporting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(6,571 |
) |
|
|
2,452 |
|
|
|
(4,220 |
) |
|
|
Fresh start reporting adjustments subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,452 |
|
|
|
(2,452 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal settlement
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
468 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses
|
|
|
1,455 |
|
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
(3,265 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1,587 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
(225 |
) |
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
3,312 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(126 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
19 |
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income/(expense)
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income
Taxes
|
|
|
(160 |
) |
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
3,161 |
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
3,120 |
|
Income Tax Expense/(Benefit)
|
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income/(Loss) From Continuing Operations
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
3,005 |
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
3,082 |
|
Income/(Loss) on Discontinued Operations, net of Income Taxes
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(239 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income/(Loss)
|
|
$ |
(79 |
) |
|
$ |
166 |
|
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
|
$ |
(87 |
) |
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
244
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW
For the Period January 1, 2003 through December 5,
2003
Predecessor Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor | |
|
Non-Guarantor | |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. | |
|
|
|
Consolidated | |
|
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
Subsidiaries | |
|
(Note Issuer) | |
|
Eliminations(1) | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss)
|
|
$ |
(79 |
) |
|
$ |
166 |
|
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
|
$ |
(87 |
) |
|
$ |
2,766 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income/(loss) to net cash provided
by operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions in excess of (less than) equity earnings of
unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
Write downs and losses on sales of equity method investments
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
|
|
|
(123 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
Current tax expense non cash contribution from
members
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gains)/losses on derivatives
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
Restructuring and impairment charges
|
|
|
273 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
Fresh start reporting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,895 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,895 |
) |
|
|
Gain on sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(186 |
) |
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) changes in certain working capital
items, net of effects from acquisitions and dispositions
|
|
|
348 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
658 |
|
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
|
799 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities
|
|
|
451 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
Proceeds from sale of turbines
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
(Increase) in trust funds
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
Decrease/(increase) in restricted cash
|
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
|
Decrease/(increase) in notes receivable
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
Investments in projects
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Investing Activities
|
|
|
(174 |
) |
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
(271 |
) |
|
|
(186 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital contributions from parent
|
|
|
(135 |
) |
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
267 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
Deferred debt issuance costs
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
Principal payments on long-term debt
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Financing Activities
|
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
(282 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
409 |
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Cash and Cash
Equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
Change in Cash from Discontinued Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
|
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
$ |
158 |
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated
in consolidation. |
245
Note 34 Subsequent Events
On February 2, 2006, NRG acquired Texas Genco LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, by purchasing all of the
outstanding equity interests in Texas Genco pursuant to the
Acquisition Agreement, dated September 30, 2005, by and
among NRG, Texas Genco and the Sellers. The purchase price of
approximately $6.1 billion consisted of approximately
$4.4 billion in cash and the issuance of approximately
35.4 million shares of NRGs common stock valued at
$1.7 billion. This amount is subject to adjustment due to
acquisition costs. The value of our common stock issued to the
Sellers was based on our average stock price immediately before
and after the closing date of February 2, 2006. The
Acquisition includes the assumption of approximately
$2.7 billion of Texas Genco debt. Texas Genco is now a
wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG, and will be managed and
accounted for as a new business segment to be referred to as NRG
Texas.
The acquisition of Texas Genco was partially funded at closing
with the combination of (i) cash proceeds received upon the
issuance and sale in a public offering of 20,855,057 shares
of our common stock at a price of $48.75 per share;
(ii) cash proceeds received upon the issuance and sale of
$1.2 billion aggregate principal amount of
7.25% Senior Notes due 2014 and $2.4 billion aggregate
principal amount of 7.375% Senior Notes due 2016, as
described below; (iii) cash proceeds received upon the
issuance and sale in a public offering of 2 million shares
of mandatory convertible preferred stock at a price of
$250 per share, as described below; (iv) funds
borrowed under a new senior secured credit facility consisting
of a $3.575 billion term loan facility, a $1.0 billion
revolving credit facility and a $1.0 billion synthetic
letter of credit facility, as described below; and (v) cash
on hand.
Texas Genco owns approximately 11,000 MW of net operating
generation capacity, and sells power and related services in
ERCOT.
The acquisition of Texas Genco will be accounted for using the
purchase method of accounting and, accordingly, the purchase
price will be allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities
assumed based on the estimated fair value of such assets and
liabilities as of February 2, 2006. As it is difficult to
estimate an allocation of purchase price without completed asset
appraisals, we have made a preliminary allocation estimate.
Ultimately, the excess of the purchase price over the fair value
of the net tangible and identified intangible assets acquired
will be recorded as goodwill. The allocation of the purchase
price may be adjusted if additional information on known
contingencies existing at the date of acquisition becomes
available within one year after the acquisition, and longer for
certain income tax items.
246
The following table summarizes the estimated unaudited fair
value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date
of acquisition. For purposes of acquisition costs, we have
estimated such costs at approximately $126 million,
increasing the total purchase price to approximately
$6.2 billion We are in the process of obtaining appraisals
of the fixed assets, intangibles and certain liabilities
acquired; thus, the allocation of the purchase price is subject
to refinement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 2, 2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current and non-current assets
|
|
$ |
1,408 |
|
Property, Plant and equipment
|
|
|
7,745 |
|
Intangibles
|
|
|
1,160 |
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
2,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired
|
|
|
12,977 |
|
Current and non-current liabilities
|
|
|
1,004 |
|
Out of market contracts
|
|
|
3,048 |
|
Long term debt
|
|
|
2,735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities acquired
|
|
|
6,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets acquired
|
|
$ |
6,190 |
|
|
|
|
|
Based on our preliminary allocation of the purchase price, the
purchase price will include an allocation to certain intangibles
as well as goodwill. The known intangibles include emission
allowances and the fair value for positive power contracts
totaling $1,140 million and $20 million, respectively.
The weighted average amortization period for the emission
allowances and the positive power contracts is approximately
26 years and one year, respectively a
weighted average of approximately 26 years for total
intangible assets.
The allocation also includes a material value for
out-of-market contracts
assumed at the closing of the acquisition which will be
amortized over the next four years on a weighted average
basis. When amortized, this balance will be reflected as an
increase to our revenue.
|
|
|
Cash Tender Offer and Consent Solicitation |
On December 15, 2005, we commenced a cash tender offer and
consent solicitation for any and all outstanding
$1.1 billion aggregate principal amount of our 8% Second
Priority Notes. On such date, we also commenced a cash tender
offer and consent solicitation for any and all outstanding
$1.1 billion aggregate principal amount of Texas Genco
LLCs and Texas Genco Financing Corp.s
6.875% senior notes due 2014, or the Texas Genco Notes. The
offer to purchase the Second Priority Notes and the Texas Genco
Notes was part of our previously announced financing plan in
connection with our acquisition of Texas Genco. As of
February 2, 2006, NRG had received valid tenders from
holders in aggregate principal amount of the NRG Notes,
representing approximately 99.96% of the outstanding Second
Priority Notes, and had received valid tenders from holders of
the $1.1 billion in aggregate principal amount of the Texas
Genco Notes, representing 100% of the outstanding Texas Genco
Notes. The purchase price for the Second Priority Notes totaling
approximately $1.2 billion was paid by NRG on
February 2, 2006 and the purchase price for the Texas Genco
Notes totaling approximately $1.2 billion was paid by NRG
on February 3, 2006.
|
|
|
New Senior Credit Facility |
On February 2, 2006, we also entered into a new senior
secured credit facility with a syndicate of financial
institutions, including Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as
administrative agent, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
as collateral agent, and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as joint lead book-runners, joint
lead arrangers and co-documentation agents providing for up to
an aggregate
247
amount of $5.575 billion, or the New Senior Credit
Facility, consisting of a $3.575 billion senior first
priority secured term loan facility, or the Term
Loan Facility, a $1.0 billion senior first priority
secured revolving credit facility, or the Revolving Credit
Facility, and a $1.0 billion senior first priority secured
synthetic letter of credit facility, or the Letter of Credit
Facility. The New Senior Credit Facility replaced our then
existing senior secured credit facility. The Term
Loan Facility will mature on February 1, 2013 and will
amortize in 27 consecutive equal quarterly installments of 0.25%
of the original principal amount of the Term Loan Facility
during the first six and
3/4
years thereof with the balance payable on the seventh
anniversary thereof. The full amount of the Revolving Credit
Facility will mature on February 2, 2011. The Letter of
Credit Facility will mature on February 1, 2013 and no
amortization will be required in respect thereof.
The New Senior Credit Facility is guaranteed by substantially
all of our existing and future direct and indirect subsidiaries,
with certain customary or agreed-upon exceptions for
unrestricted foreign subsidiaries, project subsidiaries and
certain other subsidiaries. In addition, the New Senior Credit
Facility is secured by liens on substantially all of our assets
and the assets of our subsidiaries, with certain customary or
agreed-upon exceptions for unrestricted foreign subsidiaries,
project subsidiaries and certain other subsidiaries. The capital
stock of substantially all of our subsidiaries, with certain
exceptions for unrestricted subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries
and project subsidiaries, has been pledged for the benefit of
the New Senior Credit Facility lenders.
The New Senior Credit Facility is also secured by a
first-priority perfected security interest in all of the
property and assets owned at-any time or acquired by us and our
subsidiaries, other than certain other limited exceptions. These
exceptions include assets such as the assets of certain
unrestricted subsidiaries, equity interests in certain of our
project affiliates that have non-recourse debt financing, and
voting equity interests in excess of 66% of the total
outstanding voting equity interest of certain of our foreign
subsidiaries.
The New Senior Credit Facility contains customary covenants,
which, among other things require us to meet certain financial
tests, including a minimum interest coverage ratio and a maximum
leverage ratio, each at the corporate level and on a
consolidated basis, and limits our ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
incur indebtedness and liens and enter into sale and lease-back
transactions; |
|
|
|
make investments, |
|
|
|
loans and advances; |
|
|
|
engage in mergers, acquisitions consolidations and asset sales; |
|
|
|
pay dividends and other restricted payments; |
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates; |
|
|
|
engage in business activities and hedging transactions; |
|
|
|
make capital expenditures; |
|
|
|
make debt payments; |
|
|
|
make certain changes to the terms of material indebtedness; |
|
|
|
and other covenants customary for such facilities. |
In anticipation of the New Senior Credit Facility, in January
2006, we entered into a series of new interest rate swaps. These
interest rate swaps became effective on February 15, 2006
and are intended to hedge the risk associated with floating
interest rates. For each of the interest rate swaps, we pay our
counterparty the equivalent of a fixed interest payment on a
predetermined notional value, and we receive quarterly the
equivalent of a floating interest payment based on
3-month LIBOR
calculated on the same notional value. All payments by us and
our counterparties are made quarterly, and the LIBOR is
determined in advance of each interest period. While the
notional value of each of the swaps does not vary over time, the
swaps are designed
248
to mature sequentially. The total notional amount of these swaps
as of February 25, 2006 was $2.15 billion. The
notional amounts and maturities of each tranche of these swaps
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period of swap |
|
Notional Value | |
|
Maturity | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
1-year
|
|
$ |
120 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2007 |
|
2-year
|
|
$ |
140 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2008 |
|
3-year
|
|
$ |
150 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
4-year
|
|
$ |
190 million |
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
5-year
|
|
$ |
1.55 billion |
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
On February 2, 2006, we completed the sale of
(i) $1.2 billion aggregate principal amount of
7.25% senior notes due 2014, or 7.25% Senior Notes,
and (ii) $2.4 billion aggregate principal amount of
7.375% senior notes due 2016, or 7.375% Senior Notes,
collectively the Senior Notes. The Senior Notes were issued
under an Indenture, dated February 2, 2006, or the
Indenture, between us and Law Debenture Trust Company of New
York, as trustee, or the Trustee, as supplemented by a First
Supplemental Indenture, dated February 2, 2006, or the
First Supplemental Indenture, between us, the guarantors named
therein and the Trustee, relating to the 7.25% Senior
Notes, and as supplemented by a Second Supplemental Indenture,
dated February 2, 2006, or the Second Supplemental
Indenture (together with the Indenture and the First
Supplemental Indenture, the Indentures) between us, the
guarantors named therein and the Trustee, relating to the
7.375% Senior Notes. The Indentures and the form of notes,
provide, among other things, that the Senior Notes will be
senior unsecured obligations of NRG.
Interest is payable on the Senior Notes on February 1 and
August 1 of each year beginning on August 1, 2006
until their maturity dates February 1, 2014 for
the 7.25% Senior Notes and February 1, 2016 for the
7.375% Senior Notes.
Prior to February 1, 2010 for the 7.25% Senior Notes
and prior to February 1, 2011 for the 7.375% Senior
Notes, we may redeem all or a portion of the series of Senior
Notes at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount plus a
make whole premium and accrued interest. On or after
February 1, 2010 for the 7.25% Senior Notes and on or
after February 1, 2011 for the 7.375% Senior Notes, we
may redeem all or a portion of the series of Senior Notes at
redemption prices set forth in the Indentures. In addition, at
any time prior to February 1, 2009, we may redeem up to 35%
of the aggregate principal amount of the series of Senior Notes
with the net proceeds of certain equity offerings at the
redemption price set forth in the Indentures.
The terms of the Indentures, among other things, limit our
ability and certain of our subsidiaries ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
make restricted payments; |
|
|
|
restrict dividends or other payments of subsidiaries; |
|
|
|
incur additional debt; |
|
|
|
engage in transactions with affiliates; |
|
|
|
create liens on assets; |
|
|
|
engage in sale and leaseback transactions; |
|
|
|
and consolidate, merge or transfer all or substantially all of
its assets and the assets of its subsidiaries. |
The Indentures provide for customary events of default which
include, among others, nonpayment of principal or interest;
breach of other agreements in the Indentures; defaults in
failure to pay certain other indebtedness; the rendering of
judgments to pay certain amounts of money against us and our
subsidiaries; the failure of certain guarantees to be
enforceable; and certain events of bankruptcy or insolvency.
Generally, if an event of default occurs, the Trustee or the
holders of at least 25% in principal amount of the then
outstanding series of Senior Notes may declare all the Senior
Notes of such series to be due and payable immediately.
249
On February 2, 2006, we completed the issuance of
2 million shares of 5.75% mandatory convertible preferred
stock, or the 5.75% Preferred Stock, at an offering price of
$250 per share for total net proceeds after deducting
offering expenses and underwriting discounts of approximately
$486 million. Dividends on the 5.75% Preferred Stock are
$14.375 per share per year, and are due and payable on a
quarterly basis beginning on March 15, 2006. The 5.75%
Preferred Stock will automatically convert into common stock on
March 16, 2009, or the Conversion Date, at a rate that is
dependent upon the applicable market value of our common stock.
If the applicable market value of our common stock is $60.45 a
share or higher at the Conversion Date, then the 5.75% Preferred
Stock is convertible at a rate of 4.1356 shares of our
common stock for every share of 5.75% Preferred Stock
outstanding. If the applicable market value of our common stock
is less than or equal to $48.75 per share at the Conversion
Date, then the 5.75% Preferred Stock is convertible at a rate of
5.1282 shares of our common stock for every share of 5.75%
Preferred Stock outstanding. If the applicable market value of
our common stock is between $48.75 per share and
$60.45 per share at the Conversion Date, then the Mandatory
Convertible Preferred Stock is convertible into common stock at
a rate that is between 4.1356 per share and 5.1282 per
share of common stock.
On January 31, 2006, we completed the issuance of
20,855,057 shares of our common stock, or the Common Stock,
at an offering price of $48.75 per share for total net
proceeds after deducting offering expenses and underwriting
discounts of approximately $986 million.
Before the Acquisition, Texas Gencos capital structure
permitted the grant of second priority liens on its assets as
security for their obligations under certain long-term power
sales agreements and related hedges. The Credit Agreement for
the New Senior Credit Facility and the Indentures, which became
effective as of February 2, 2006, allow these arrangements
to remain in place. In addition, the new debt instruments also
permit us to grant second priority liens on our other assets in
the United States in order to secure obligations under power
sales agreements and related hedges, within certain limits. The
seven trading counterparties of Texas Genco who held second
priority liens on Texas Gencos assets as of
February 2, 2006 have been offered a second priority lien
on NRGs other assets under the new structure as additional
collateral. Going forward, NRG anticipates that it will use the
second lien structure to reduce the amount of cash collateral
and letters of credit that it may otherwise be required to post
from time to time to support its obligations under long term
power sales and related hedges.
On January 31, 2006, we finalized a settlement agreement
and stipulation, or the Agreements, with an equipment
manufacturer related to turbine purchase agreements entered into
in 2001 by NRG Bourbonnais and in 1999 by an undeveloped
project. The Agreements provide for the payment of the equipment
manufacturers proof of claim previously filed in
NRGs bankruptcy proceeding, a separate $6 million
payment to the equipment manufacturer, and the release of all
remaining claims the parties have against each other under the
contracts. Additionally, NRG will receive certain equipment as
well as a one year option to purchase new-build equipment for a
fixed price. As a result of the Agreements, during the first
quarter of 2006, NRG will reverse into income accounts payable
totaling $35 million resulting from the discharge of the
previously recorded liability. In addition, upon the transfer of
title for the equipment noted above, NRG will record an
adjustment to write up the value of the equipment received to
fair value. We expect title to transfer in April 2006 at which
time we will record a credit to income for the difference
between our current book value and fair value received.
250
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of NRG Energy, Inc.:
Our audit of the consolidated financial statements referred to
in our report dated March 10, 2004, except as to
Notes 6, 21, and 33, which are as of December 6,
2004, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K also
included an audit of the financial statement schedule listed in
Item 15(a)(2) of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. In our
opinion, this financial statement schedule for the period from
December 6, 2003 to December 31, 2003 presents fairly,
in all material respects, the information set forth therein when
read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial
statements.
|
|
|
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
|
|
|
|
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 10, 2004, except as to
Notes 6, 21, and 33,
which are as of December 6, 2004.
251
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of NRG Energy, Inc.:
Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to
in our report dated March 10, 2004, except as to
Notes 6, 21, and 33, which are as of December 6,
2004, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K also
included an audit of the financial statement schedule listed in
Item 15(a)(2) of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. In our
opinion, this financial statement schedule for the period from
January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2003 presents fairly,
in all material respects, the information set forth therein when
read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial
statements.
|
|
|
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
|
|
|
|
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 10, 2004, except as to
Notes 6, 21, and 33,
which are as of December 6, 2004.
252
NRG ENERGY, INC.
SCHEDULE II. VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Column A |
|
Column B | |
|
Column C | |
|
Column D | |
|
Column E | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Additions | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
Charged to | |
|
Charged to | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of | |
|
Costs and | |
|
Other | |
|
|
|
Balance at | |
Description |
|
Period | |
|
Expenses | |
|
Accounts | |
|
Deductions | |
|
End of Period | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Allowance for doubtful accounts, deducted from accounts
receivable in the balance sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
December 6 - December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1 - December 5, 2003
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
* |
Income tax valuation allowance, deducted from deferred tax
assets in the balance sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reorganized NRG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2005
|
|
$ |
708 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
85 |
|
|
$ |
(59 |
) |
|
$ |
756 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
1,241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(277 |
) |
|
|
(256 |
) |
|
|
708 |
|
December 6 - December 31, 2003
|
|
|
1,242 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,241 |
|
Predecessor Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1 - December 5, 2003
|
|
|
1,171 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,242 |
* |
|
|
* |
December 6, 2003 - Fresh Start Balance |
253
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned
thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
NRG Energy, Inc.
|
|
(Registrant) |
|
|
/s/ David W. Crane
|
|
|
|
David W. Crane, |
|
Chief Executive Officer |
|
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
|
/s/ Robert C. Flexon
|
|
|
|
Robert C. Flexon, |
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
|
/s/ James J. Ingoldsby
|
|
|
|
James J. Ingoldsby, |
|
Controller |
|
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
Date: March 7, 2006
254
POWER OF ATTORNEY:
Each person whose signature appears below constitutes and
appoints David W. Crane, Timothy W. J. OBrien
and Tanuja M. Dehne, each or any of them, such persons
true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and
agent with full power of substitution and resubstitution for
such person and in such persons name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this
report on
Form 10-K, and to
file the same with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing necessary or desirable to
be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as such person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said
attorneys-in-fact and
agents, or any of them or his or their substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.
In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed
by the following persons on behalf of the registrant in the
capacities indicated on March 7, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ David W. Crane
David W. Crane |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Howard E. Cosgrove
Howard E. Cosgrove |
|
Chairman of the Board |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ John F. Chlebowski
John F. Chlebowski |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Lawrence S. Coben
Lawrence S. Coben |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Stephen L. Cropper
Stephen L. Cropper |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Maureen Miskovic
Maureen Miskovic |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Anne C. Schaumburg
Anne C. Schaumburg |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Herbert H. Tate
Herbert H. Tate |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Thomas H.
Weidemeyer
Thomas H. Weidemeyer |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
|
/s/ Walter R. Young
Walter R. Young |
|
Director |
|
March 7, 2006 |
255
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
.1 |
|
Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of NRG Energy, Inc.,
NRG Power Marketing, Inc., NRG Capital LLC, NRG Finance Company
I LLC, and NRGenerating Holdings (No. 23) B.V.(7) |
|
|
2 |
.2 |
|
First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of NRG Northeast
Generating LLC (and certain of its subsidiaries), NRG South
Central Generating (and certain of its subsidiaries) and
Berrians I Gas Turbine Power LLC.(7) |
|
|
2 |
.3 |
|
Acquisition Agreement, dated as of September 30, 2005, by
and among NRG Energy, Inc., Texas Genco LLC and the Direct and
Indirect Owners of Texas Genco LLC.(16) |
|
|
3 |
.1 |
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.(21) |
|
|
3 |
.2 |
|
Amended and Restated By-Laws.(8) |
|
|
3 |
.3 |
|
Certificate of Designation of 4.0% Convertible Perpetual
Preferred Stock, as filed with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware on December 20, 2004.(10) |
|
|
3 |
.4 |
|
Certificate of Designations of 3.625% Convertible Perpetual
Preferred Stock, as filed with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware on August 11, 2005. (22) |
|
|
3 |
.5 |
|
Certificate of Designations of 5.75% Mandatory Convertible
Preferred Stock, as filed with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware on January 27, 2006. (24) |
|
|
4 |
.1 |
|
Supplemental Indenture dated as of December 30, 2005, among
NRG Energy, Inc., the subsidiary guarantors named on Schedule A
thereto and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York, as trustee.
(18) |
|
|
4 |
.2 |
|
Amended and Restated Common Agreement among XL Capital Assurance
Inc., Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine Derivative Products, L.P., Law
Debenture Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, The Bank of New
York, as Collateral Agent, NRG Peaker Finance Company LLC and
each Project Company Party thereto dated as of January 6,
2004, together with Annex A to the Common Agreement.(2) |
|
|
4 |
.3 |
|
Amended and Restated Security Deposit Agreement among NRG Peaker
Finance Company, LLC and each Project Company party thereto, and
the Bank of New York, as Collateral Agent and Depositary Agent,
dated as of January 6, 2004.(2) |
|
|
4 |
.4 |
|
NRG Parent Agreement by NRG Energy, Inc. in favor of the Bank of
New York, as Collateral Agent, dated as of January 6,
2004.(2) |
|
|
4 |
.5 |
|
Indenture dated June 18, 2002, between NRG Peaker Finance
Company LLC, as Issuer, Bayou Cove Peaking Power LLC, Big Cajun
I Peaking Power LLC, NRG Rockford LLC, NRG Rockford II LLC
and Sterlington Power LLC, as Guarantors, XL Capital Assurance
Inc., as Insurer, and Law Debenture Trust Company, as Successor
Trustee to the Bank of New York.(4) |
|
|
4 |
.6 |
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated December 21, 2004, by
and among NRG Energy, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.(9) |
|
|
4 |
.7 |
|
Specimen of Certificate representing common stock of NRG Energy,
Inc.(25) |
|
|
4 |
.8 |
|
Indenture, dated February 2, 2006, among NRG Energy, Inc.
and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York.(26) |
|
|
4 |
.9 |
|
First Supplemental Indenture, dated February 2, 2006, among
NRG Energy, Inc., the guarantors named therein and Law Debenture
Trust Company of New York as Trustee, re: NRG Energy,
Inc.s 7.250% Senior Notes due 2014. (26) |
|
|
4 |
.10 |
|
Second Supplemental Indenture, dated February 2, 2006,
among NRG Energy, Inc., the guarantors named therein and Law
Debenture Trust Company of New York as Trustee, re: NRG Energy,
Inc.s 7.375% Senior Notes due 2016. (26) |
|
|
4 |
.11 |
|
Form of 7.250% Senior Note due 2014.(26) |
|
|
4 |
.12 |
|
Form of 7.375% Senior Note due 2016.(26) |
|
|
10 |
.1* |
|
Employment Agreement, dated November 10, 2003, between NRG
Energy, Inc. and David Crane.(2) |
|
|
10 |
.2 |
|
Note Agreement, dated August 20, 1993, between NRG
Energy, Inc., Energy Center, Inc. and each of the purchasers
named therein.(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
.3 |
|
Master Shelf and Revolving Credit Agreement, dated
August 20, 1993, between NRG Energy, Inc., Energy Center,
Inc., The Prudential Insurance Registrants of America and each
Prudential Affiliate, which becomes party thereto.(5) |
|
|
10 |
.4 |
|
Asset Sales Agreement, dated December 23, 1998, between NRG
Energy, Inc., and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.(6) |
|
|
10 |
.5 |
|
Amendment to the Asset Sales Agreement, dated June 11,
1999, between NRG Energy, Inc., and Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation.(6) |
|
|
10 |
.6* |
|
Severance Agreement between NRG Energy, Inc. and George Schaefer
dated December 18, 2002.(4) |
|
|
10 |
.7* |
|
Severance Agreement between NRG Energy, Inc. and John P.
Brewster dated July 23, 2003.(2) |
|
|
10 |
.8 |
|
Stock Purchase Agreement dated December 13, 2004, by and
among NRG Energy, Inc. and MatlinPatterson Global Advisers LLC,
MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners, L.P. and
MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners (Bermuda) L.P.(11) |
|
|
10 |
.9* |
|
NEO 2004 AIP Payout and 2005 Base Salary Table.(8) |
|
|
10 |
.10* |
|
Form of NRG Energy Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan Deferred Stock
Unit Agreement for Officers and Key Management.(20) |
|
|
10 |
.11* |
|
Form of NRG Energy Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan Deferred Stock
Unit Agreement for Directors.(20) |
|
|
10 |
.12* |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan.(15) |
|
|
10 |
.13* |
|
Form of NRG Energy, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan Non-Qualified
Stock Option Agreement.(12) |
|
|
10 |
.14* |
|
Form of NRG Energy, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan Restricted
Stock Unit Agreement.(12) |
|
|
10 |
.15* |
|
Form of NRG Energy, Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan Performance
Unit Agreement. (17) |
|
|
10 |
.16* |
|
Annual Incentive Plan for Designated Corporate Officers.(13) |
|
|
10 |
.17* |
|
Letter Agreement, dated March 5, 2004, between NRG Energy,
Inc. and John P. Brewster.(14) |
|
|
10 |
.18* |
|
Letter Agreement, dated March 5, 2004, between NRG Energy,
Inc. and Timothy W. OBrien.(14) |
|
|
10 |
.19* |
|
Letter Agreement, dated February 19, 2004, between NRG
Energy, Inc. and Robert C. Flexon.(14) |
|
|
10 |
.20 |
|
Railroad Car Full Service Master Leasing Agreement, dated as of
February 18, 2005, between General Electric Railcar
Services Corporation and NRG Power Marketing Inc.(20) |
|
|
10 |
.21 |
|
Commitment Letter, dated February 18, 2005, between General
Electric Railcar Services Corporation and NRG Power Marketing
Inc.(20) |
|
|
10 |
.22* |
|
Summary of Director Compensation.(20) |
|
|
10 |
.23 |
|
Purchase Agreement (West Coast Power) dated as of
December 27, 2005, by and among NRG Energy, Inc., NRG West
Coast LLC (Buyer), DPC II Inc. (Seller) and Dynegy, Inc.(19) |
|
|
10 |
.24 |
|
Purchase Agreement (Rocky Road Power), dated as of
December 27, 2005, by and among Termo Santander Holding,
L.L.C. (Buyer), Dynegy, Inc., NRG Rocky Road LLC (Seller) and
NRG Energy, Inc.(19) |
|
|
10 |
.25* |
|
August 1, 2005 Executive Officer Grant Table.(23) |
|
|
10 |
.26* |
|
Letter Agreement, dated June 21, 2005, between NRG Energy,
Inc. and Kevin T. Howell. (23) |
|
|
10 |
.27 |
|
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 10, 2005, by
and between NRG Energy, Inc. and Credit Suisse First Boston
Capital LLC.(22) |
|
|
10 |
.28 |
|
Accelerated Share Repurchase Agreement, dated as of
August 11, 2005, by and between NRG Energy, Inc. and Credit
Suisse First Boston Capital LLC.(22) |
|
|
10 |
.29 |
|
Credit Agreement, dated February 2, 2006, among NRG, the
lenders party thereto, Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as
administrative agent, Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as joint lead Book Runners, Joint
Lead Arrangers and Co-Documentation Agents, Morgan Stanley &
Co. Incorporated, as Collateral Agent, and Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., as Syndication Agent.(26) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
.30 |
|
Investor Rights Agreement, dated as of February 2, 2006, by
and among NRG Energy, Inc. and Certain Stockholders of NRG
Energy, Inc. set forth therein.(27) |
|
10 |
.31 |
|
Amended and Restated Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement,
dated February 2, 2006, by and between J. Aron &
Company and Texas Genco II, LP (including the cover sheet
and confirmation letter thereto) (portions of this document have
been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment
and filed separately with the SEC).(1) |
|
10 |
.32 |
|
Terms and Conditions of Sale, dated as of October 5, 2005,
between Texas Genco II LP and FreightCar America, Inc.,
(including the Proposal Letter and Amendment thereto) (portions
of this document have been omitted pursuant to a request for
confidential treatment and filed separately with the SEC).(1) |
|
10 |
.33* |
|
Employment Agreement, dated March 3, 2006, between NRG
Energy, Inc. and David Crane.(1) |
|
10 |
.34* |
|
NEO 2005 AIP Payout and 2006 Base Salary Table.(1) |
|
21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of NRG Energy. Inc.(1) |
|
|
23 |
.1 |
|
Consent of KPMG LLP.(1) |
|
|
23 |
.2 |
|
Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.(1) |
|
|
31 |
.1 |
|
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) certification of David W. Crane.(1) |
|
|
31 |
.2 |
|
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) certification of Robert C.
Flexon.(1) |
|
|
31 |
.3 |
|
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) certification of James J.
Ingoldsby.(1) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
Section 1350 Certification.(1) |
|
|
|
|
* |
Exhibit relates to compensation arrangements. |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Filed herewith. |
|
|
(2) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
annual report on
Form 10-K filed on
March 16, 2004. |
|
|
(3) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy Inc.s
Amendment No. 2 to its annual report on
Form 10-K filed on
November 3, 2004. |
|
|
(4) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
annual report on
Form 10-K filed on
March 31, 2003. |
|
|
(5) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy Inc.s
Registration Statement on
Form S-1, as
amended, Registration
No. 333-33397.
|
|
|
(6) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 1999. |
|
|
(7) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
November 19, 2003. |
|
|
(8) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
March 3, 2005. |
|
|
(9) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
December 27, 2004. |
|
|
(10) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
December 27, 2004. |
|
(11) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K/ A filed
on December 14, 2004. |
|
(12) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004. |
|
(13) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s 2004
proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed on July 12, 2004. |
|
(14) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2004. |
|
|
(15) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy Inc.s
Registration Statement on
Form S-8,
Registration
No. 333-114007.
|
|
(16) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
October 3, 2005. |
|
(17) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005. |
|
(18) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
January 4, 2006. |
|
(19) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
December 28, 2005. |
|
(20) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
annual report on
Form 10-K filed on
March 30, 2005. |
|
(21) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
May 24, 2005. |
|
(22) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
August 11, 2005. |
|
(23) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
August 3, 2005. |
|
(24) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
Form 8-A filed on
January 27, 2006. |
|
(25) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on Form 8-K filed on January 27, 2006. |
|
(26) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
February 6, 2006. |
|
(27) |
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s
current report on
Form 8-K filed on
February 8, 2006. |