Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-Q
(Mark one) | ||
ý |
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|
For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2011 |
||
or |
||
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 number 333-68630
EDISON MISSION ENERGY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
95-4031807 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 100 Santa Ana, California (Address of principal executive offices) |
92707 (Zip Code) |
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (714) 513-8000
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES ý NO o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). YES o NO o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer o | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer ý (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
Smaller reporting company 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 ý
Number of shares outstanding of the registrant's Common Stock as of August 4, 2011: 100 shares (all shares held by an affiliate of the registrant).
i
ii
iii
iv
When the following terms and abbreviations appear in the text of this report, they have the meanings indicated below.
2010 Tax Relief Act | Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 | |
AES | AES Southland Funding, LLC and its affiliates | |
AOI | adjusted operating income (loss) | |
BACT | best available control technology | |
bcf | billion cubic feet | |
Big 4 | Kern River, Midway-Sunset, Sycamore and Watson natural gas power projects | |
Btu | British thermal units | |
CAA | Clean Air Act | |
CAIR | Clean Air Interstate Rule | |
coal plants | Midwest Generation coal plants and Homer City electric generating station | |
Commonwealth Edison | Commonwealth Edison Company | |
CPS | Combined Pollutant Standard | |
CSAPR | Cross-State Air Pollution Rule | |
EME | Edison Mission Energy | |
EMMT | Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. | |
GAAP | accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America | |
GWh | gigawatt-hours | |
Homer City | EME Homer City Generation L.P. | |
LIBOR | London Interbank Offered Rate | |
MD&A | Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations | |
Midwest Generation | Midwest Generation, LLC | |
MMBtu | million British thermal units | |
Moody's | Moody's Investors Service, Inc. | |
MW | megawatts | |
MWh | megawatt-hours | |
NOX | nitrogen oxide | |
NYISO | New York Independent System Operator | |
PJM | PJM Interconnection, LLC | |
PRB | Powder River Basin | |
PSD | Prevention of Significant Deterioration | |
RPM | Reliability Pricing Model | |
S&P | Standard & Poor's Ratings Services | |
SO2 | sulfur dioxide | |
US EPA | United States Environmental Protection Agency | |
U.S. Treasury grants | Cash grants, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 | |
v
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
EDISON MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (in millions, unaudited) |
|
|
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Operating Revenues |
$ | 536 | $ | 493 | $ | 1,086 | $ | 1,144 | |||||||
Operating Expenses |
|||||||||||||||
Fuel |
174 | 161 | 356 | 374 | |||||||||||
Plant operations |
240 | 226 | 432 | 384 | |||||||||||
Plant operating leases |
44 | 45 | 88 | 89 | |||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
79 | 60 | 151 | 119 | |||||||||||
Asset retirements |
8 | 3 | 8 | 4 | |||||||||||
Administrative and general |
45 | 44 | 88 | 90 | |||||||||||
Total operating expenses |
590 | 539 | 1,123 | 1,060 | |||||||||||
Operating income (loss) |
(54 |
) |
(46 |
) |
(37 |
) |
84 |
||||||||
Other Income (Expense) |
|||||||||||||||
Equity in income from unconsolidated affiliates |
17 | 20 | 12 | 37 | |||||||||||
Dividend income |
27 | 1 | 28 | 17 | |||||||||||
Interest income |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||
Interest expense |
(80 | ) | (66 | ) | (160 | ) | (134 | ) | |||||||
Other income, net |
2 | | 5 | 2 | |||||||||||
Total other income (expense) |
(34 |
) |
(44 |
) |
(114 |
) |
(76 |
) |
|||||||
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes |
(88 |
) |
(90 |
) |
(151 |
) |
8 |
||||||||
Benefit for income taxes |
(57 | ) | (70 | ) | (102 | ) | (47 | ) | |||||||
Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations |
(31 |
) |
(20 |
) |
(49 |
) |
55 |
||||||||
Income (Loss) from Operations of Discontinued Subsidiaries, net of tax (Note 13) |
(1 | ) | 3 | (3 | ) | 9 | |||||||||
Net Income (Loss) |
(32 |
) |
(17 |
) |
(52 |
) |
64 |
||||||||
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Edison Mission Energy Common Shareholder |
$ |
(32 |
) |
$ |
(17 |
) |
$ |
(52 |
) |
$ |
64 |
||||
Amounts Attributable to Edison Mission Energy Common Shareholder |
|||||||||||||||
Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of tax |
$ | (31 | ) | $ | (20 | ) | $ | (49 | ) | $ | 55 | ||||
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax |
(1 | ) | 3 | (3 | ) | 9 | |||||||||
Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Edison Mission Energy Common Shareholder |
$ |
(32 |
) |
$ |
(17 |
) |
$ |
(52 |
) |
$ |
64 |
||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
1
EDISON MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) (in millions, unaudited) |
|||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Net Income (Loss) |
$ | (32 | ) | $ | (17 | ) | $ | (52 | ) | $ | 64 | ||||
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax |
|||||||||||||||
Pension and postretirement benefits other than pensions |
|||||||||||||||
Amortization of net loss included in expenses, net of tax |
| | 1 | | |||||||||||
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives qualified as cash flow hedges |
|||||||||||||||
Unrealized holding gains (losses) arising during period, net of income tax expense (benefit) of $(9) and $(50) for the three months and $(5) and $12 for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively |
(14 | ) | (77 | ) | (8 | ) | 18 | ||||||||
Reclassification adjustments included in net income (loss), net of income tax benefit of $6 and $35 for the three months and $12 and $49 for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively |
(7 | ) | (53 | ) | (17 | ) | (73 | ) | |||||||
Other comprehensive loss |
(21 |
) |
(130 |
) |
(24 |
) |
(55 |
) |
|||||||
Comprehensive Income (Loss) |
(53 |
) |
(147 |
) |
(76 |
) |
9 |
||||||||
Comprehensive Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Comprehensive Income (Loss) Attributable to Edison Mission Energy Common Shareholder |
$ |
(53 |
) |
$ |
(147 |
) |
$ |
(76 |
) |
$ |
9 |
||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
2
EDISON MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (in millions, unaudited) |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
June 30, 2011 |
December 31, 2010 |
|||||||
Assets |
|||||||||
Current Assets |
|||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ | 833 | $ | 1,075 | |||||
Accounts receivabletrade |
137 | 170 | |||||||
Receivables from affiliates |
225 | 192 | |||||||
Inventory |
259 | 236 | |||||||
Derivative assets |
39 | 46 | |||||||
Restricted cash |
11 | 2 | |||||||
Margin and collateral deposits |
50 | 59 | |||||||
Prepaid expenses and other |
284 | 79 | |||||||
Total current assets |
1,838 |
1,859 |
|||||||
Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates |
550 |
557 |
|||||||
Property, Plant and Equipment, less accumulated depreciation of $1,898 and $1,759 at respective dates |
5,536 |
5,332 |
|||||||
Other Assets |
|||||||||
Deferred financing costs |
52 | 54 | |||||||
Long-term derivative assets |
63 | 70 | |||||||
Restricted deposits |
25 | 44 | |||||||
Rent payments in excess of levelized rent expense under plant operating leases |
1,288 | 1,187 | |||||||
Other long-term assets |
141 | 218 | |||||||
Total other assets |
1,569 |
1,573 |
|||||||
Total Assets |
$ |
9,493 |
$ |
9,321 |
|||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
3
EDISON MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (in millions, except share and per share amounts, unaudited) |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
June 30, 2011 |
December 31, 2010 |
|||||||
Liabilities and Shareholder's Equity |
|||||||||
Current Liabilities |
|||||||||
Accounts payable |
$ | 134 | $ | 90 | |||||
Payables to affiliates |
15 | 18 | |||||||
Accrued liabilities |
150 | 201 | |||||||
Derivative liabilities |
6 | 6 | |||||||
Interest payable |
31 | 31 | |||||||
Deferred taxes |
38 | 34 | |||||||
Current portion of long-term debt |
53 | 48 | |||||||
Short-term debt |
109 | 96 | |||||||
Total current liabilities |
536 | 524 | |||||||
Long-term debt net of current portion |
4,484 |
4,342 |
|||||||
Deferred taxes and tax credits |
787 | 836 | |||||||
Deferred revenues |
319 | 160 | |||||||
Long-term derivative liabilities |
23 | 19 | |||||||
Other long-term liabilities |
604 | 619 | |||||||
Total Liabilities |
6,753 |
6,500 |
|||||||
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 5, 6, 9 and 10) |
|||||||||
Equity |
|||||||||
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share (10,000 shares authorized; 100 shares issued and outstanding at each date) |
64 | 64 | |||||||
Additional paid-in capital |
1,335 | 1,336 | |||||||
Retained earnings |
1,393 | 1,448 | |||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
(55 | ) | (31 | ) | |||||
Total Edison Mission Energy common shareholder's equity |
2,737 |
2,817 |
|||||||
Noncontrolling Interests |
3 |
4 |
|||||||
Total Equity |
2,740 |
2,821 |
|||||||
Total Liabilities and Equity |
$ |
9,493 |
$ |
9,321 |
|||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
4
EDISON MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (in millions, unaudited) |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||
|
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||
Cash Flows From Operating Activities |
|||||||||
Net income (loss) |
$ | (52 | ) | $ | 64 | ||||
(Income) loss from discontinued operations |
3 | (9 | ) | ||||||
Income (loss) from continuing operations, net |
(49 | ) | 55 | ||||||
Adjustments to reconcile income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|||||||||
Equity in income from unconsolidated affiliates |
(12 | ) | (37 | ) | |||||
Distributions from unconsolidated affiliates |
15 | 39 | |||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
164 | 125 | |||||||
Deferred taxes and tax credits |
(30 | ) | 53 | ||||||
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: |
|||||||||
Decrease in margin and collateral deposits |
9 | 12 | |||||||
Decrease in accounts receivables |
| 53 | |||||||
Increase in inventory |
(22 | ) | (34 | ) | |||||
(Increase) decrease in prepaid expenses and other |
(12 | ) | 7 | ||||||
(Increase) decrease in restricted cash |
(9 | ) | 43 | ||||||
Increase in rent payments in excess of levelized rent expense |
(101 | ) | (111 | ) | |||||
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and other current liabilities |
1 | (121 | ) | ||||||
Increase in derivative assets and liabilities |
(23 | ) | (35 | ) | |||||
Proceeds from U.S. Treasury grants |
| 92 | |||||||
Decrease in other operatingassets |
8 | 8 | |||||||
Increase (decrease) in other operatingliabilities |
(31 | ) | 10 | ||||||
Operating cash flow from continuing operations |
(92 | ) | 159 | ||||||
Operating cash flow from discontinued operations |
(3 | ) | 9 | ||||||
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities |
(95 | ) | 168 | ||||||
Cash Flows From Financing Activities |
|||||||||
Borrowings on long-term debt |
95 | 7 | |||||||
Payments on long-term debt |
(28 | ) | (23 | ) | |||||
Borrowings on short-term debt |
32 | | |||||||
Borrowings under construction loan |
| 65 | |||||||
Payments to affiliates related to stock-based awards |
(4 | ) | (2 | ) | |||||
Excess tax benefits related to stock option exercises |
1 | | |||||||
Financing costs |
| (10 | ) | ||||||
Net cash provided by financing activities from continuing operations |
96 | 37 | |||||||
Cash Flows From Investing Activities |
|||||||||
Capital expenditures |
(238 | ) | (313 | ) | |||||
Proceeds from return of capital and loan repayments and sale of assets |
12 | 27 | |||||||
Investments in and loans to unconsolidated affiliates |
(7 | ) | | ||||||
Purchase of interest of acquired companies |
| (4 | ) | ||||||
Maturities of short-term investments |
| 1 | |||||||
Decrease in restricted deposits |
19 | | |||||||
Investments in other assets |
(29 | ) | (5 | ) | |||||
Net cash used in investing activities from continuing operations |
(243 | ) | (294 | ) | |||||
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
(242 | ) | (89 | ) | |||||
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
1,075 | 796 | |||||||
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
$ | 833 | $ | 707 | |||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
5
EDISON MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 30, 2011
(Unaudited)
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Edison Mission Energy's (EME's) significant accounting policies were described in "Note 1Summary of Significant Accounting Policies" on page 94 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. EME follows the same accounting policies for interim reporting purposes, with the exception of accounting principles adopted as of January 1, 2011, as discussed below in "New Accounting Guidance." This quarterly report should be read in conjunction with such financial statements and notes.
In the opinion of management, all adjustments, including recurring accruals, have been made that are necessary to fairly state the consolidated financial position and results of operations and cash flows in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) for the periods covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q. The results of operations for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the full year. Except as indicated, amounts reflected in the notes to the consolidated financial statements relate to continuing operations of EME.
Certain prior year reclassifications have been made to conform to the current year financial statement presentation pertaining to immaterial items.
The December 31, 2010 condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP.
Cash equivalents included money market funds totaling $674 million and $813 million at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The carrying value of cash equivalents equals the fair value as all investments have maturities of less than three months.
Inventory is stated at the lower of weighted average cost or market. Inventory consisted of the following:
(in millions) |
June 30, 2011 |
December 31, 2010 |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coal, fuel oil and other raw materials |
$ | 183 | $ | 163 | |||
Spare parts, materials and supplies |
76 | 73 | |||||
Total inventory |
$ | 259 | $ | 236 | |||
6
At June 30, 2011, EME recorded $166 million for U.S. Treasury grants receivable related to the Laredo Ridge and Cedro Hill wind projects that was included in prepaid expenses and other and also in deferred revenues on its consolidated balance sheet.
Accounting Guidance Adopted in 2011
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued amended guidance for identifying separate deliverables in a revenue-generating transaction where multiple deliverables exist, and provides guidance for allocating and recognizing revenues based on those separate deliverables. This update also requires additional disclosure related to the significant assumptions used to determine the revenue recognition of the separate deliverables. This guidance is required to be applied prospectively to new or significantly modified revenue arrangements. EME adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2011. The adoption of this accounting standards update did not have a material impact on EME's consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures
The FASB issued an accounting standards update modifying the disclosure requirements related to fair value measurements. Under these requirements, purchases and settlements for Level 3 fair value measurements are presented on a gross basis, rather than net. EME adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2011.
Accounting Guidance Not Yet Adopted
In May 2011, the FASB issued an accounting standards update modifying the fair value measurement and disclosure guidance. This guidance prohibits grouping of financial instruments for purposes of fair value measurement and requires the value be based on the individual security. This amendment also results in new disclosures primarily related to Level 3 measurements including quantitative disclosure about unobservable inputs and assumptions, a description of the valuation processes and a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value to changes in unobservable inputs. EME will adopt this guidance effective January 1, 2012 and does not expect the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on EME's consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Presentation of Comprehensive Income
In June 2011, the FASB issued an accounting standards update on the presentation of comprehensive income. An entity can elect to present items of net income and other comprehensive income in one continuous statement, referred to as the statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate but consecutive statements. EME will adopt this guidance effective January 1, 2012. EME currently presents the statement of comprehensive income immediately following the statement of income and expects to continue to do so. The adoption of this accounting standards update does not change the items that constitute net income and other comprehensive income.
7
Note 2. Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity
The following table provides the changes in equity for the six months ended June 30, 2011:
|
EME Shareholder's Equity | |
|
||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
Common Stock |
Additional Paid-in Capital |
Retained Earnings |
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss |
Non- controlling Interest |
Total Equity |
|||||||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2010 |
$ | 64 | $ | 1,336 | $ | 1,448 | $ | (31 | ) | $ | 4 | $ | 2,821 | ||||||
Net loss |
| | (52 | ) | | | (52 | ) | |||||||||||
Other comprehensive loss |
| | | (24 | ) | | (24 | ) | |||||||||||
Payments to Edison International for stock purchases related to stock-based compensation |
| | (3 | ) | | | (3 | ) | |||||||||||
Excess tax benefits related to stock option exercises |
| 1 | | | | 1 | |||||||||||||
Other stock transactions, net |
| 2 | | | | 2 | |||||||||||||
Purchase of noncontrolling interests1 |
| (4 | ) | | | (1 | ) | (5 | ) | ||||||||||
Balance at June 30, 2011 |
$ | 64 | $ | 1,335 | $ | 1,393 | $ | (55 | ) | $ | 3 | $ | 2,740 | ||||||
The following table provides the changes in equity for the six months ended June 30, 2010:
|
EME Shareholder's Equity | |
|
||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
Common Stock |
Additional Paid-in Capital |
Retained Earnings |
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income |
Non- controlling Interest |
Total Equity |
|||||||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2009 |
$ | 64 | $ | 1,339 | $ | 1,280 | $ | 78 | $ | 76 | $ | 2,837 | |||||||
Impact of consolidation and deconsolidation of variable interest entities1 |
| | 10 | | (71 | ) | (61 | ) | |||||||||||
Net income |
| | 64 | | | 64 | |||||||||||||
Other comprehensive loss |
| | | (55 | ) | | (55 | ) | |||||||||||
Payments to Edison International for stock purchases related to stock-based compensation |
| | (2 | ) | | | (2 | ) | |||||||||||
Other stock transactions, net |
| 3 | | | | 3 | |||||||||||||
Purchase of noncontrolling interests2 |
| (5 | ) | | | | (5 | ) | |||||||||||
Balance at June 30, 2010 |
$ | 64 | $ | 1,337 | $ | 1,352 | $ | 23 | $ | 5 | $ | 2,781 | |||||||
8
Note 3. Variable Interest Entities
Projects or Entities that are Consolidated
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, EME consolidated 13 and 14 projects, respectively, with a total generating capacity of 570 MW and 580 MW, respectively, that have interests held by others. In April 2011, EME sold its 75% ownership interest in a Minnesota wind project. In determining that EME was the primary beneficiary, the key factors considered were EME's ability to direct commercial and operating activities, and EME's obligation to absorb losses and right to receive benefits that could potentially be significant to the variable interest entities. Commercial and operating activities include construction, operation and maintenance, fuel procurement, dispatch and compliance with regulatory and contractual requirements.
The following table presents summarized financial information of the projects that were consolidated by EME:
(in millions) |
June 30, 2011 |
December 31, 2010 |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Current assets |
$ | 39 | $ | 26 | ||||
Net property, plant and equipment |
712 | 739 | ||||||
Other long-term assets |
5 | 6 | ||||||
Total assets |
$ | 756 | $ | 771 | ||||
Current liabilities |
$ | 23 | $ | 25 | ||||
Long-term debt net of current portion |
68 | 71 | ||||||
Deferred revenues |
69 | 71 | ||||||
Other long-term liabilities |
21 | 21 | ||||||
Total liabilities |
$ | 181 | $ | 188 | ||||
Noncontrolling interests |
$ | 3 | $ | 4 | ||||
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, assets serving as collateral for the debt obligations had a carrying value of $163 million and primarily consist of property, plant and equipment.
Projects that are not Consolidated
EME accounts for domestic gas and wind energy projects in which it has less than a 100% ownership interest, and cannot exercise unilateral control, under the equity method. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, EME had five significant variable interests in natural gas projects that are not consolidated, consisting of the Big 4 projects (Kern River, Midway-Sunset, Sycamore and Watson) and the Sunrise project. A subsidiary of EME operates three of the four Big 4 projects and the Sunrise project and EME's partner provides the fuel management services for the Big 4 projects. In addition, the executive director of these projects is provided by EME's partner. Commercial and operating activities are jointly controlled by a management committee of each variable interest entity. Accordingly, EME accounts for its variable interests under the equity method.
At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, EME accounts for its interests in two renewable wind generating facilities, the Elkhorn Ridge and San Juan Mesa projects, under the equity method. In addition, EME accounts for its interests in Community Wind North, which achieved commercial operation on May 28, 2011, under the equity method. The commercial and operating activities of these
9
entities are jointly directed by representatives of each partner. Thus, EME is not the primary beneficiary of these projects.
The following table presents the carrying amount of EME's investments in unconsolidated variable interest entities and the maximum exposure to loss for each investment:
|
June 30, 2011 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
Investment |
Maximum Exposure |
|||||
Natural gas-fired projects |
$ | 321 | $ | 321 | |||
Renewable energy projects |
229 | 229 | |||||
EME's maximum exposure to loss in its variable interest entities accounted for under the equity method is generally limited to its investment in these entities. One of EME's domestic energy projects has long-term debt that is secured by a pledge of project entity assets, but does not provide for recourse to EME. Accordingly, a default under the project financing could result in foreclosure on the assets of the project entity resulting in a loss of some or all of EME's investment, but would not require EME to contribute additional capital. At June 30, 2011, entities which EME has accounted for under the equity method had indebtedness of $65 million, of which $16 million is proportionate to EME's ownership interest in this one project.
Note 4. Fair Value Measurements
Recurring Fair Value Measurements
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (referred to as an "exit price"). Fair value of an asset or a liability should consider assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about nonperformance risk. The fair value of derivative assets' nonperformance risk was not material as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
EME categorizes financial assets and liabilities into a fair value hierarchy based on valuation inputs used to derive fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).
10
The following table sets forth EME's assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value by level within the fair value hierarchy:
|
June 30, 2011 | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
Level 1 |
Level 2 |
Level 3 |
Netting and Collateral1 |
Total |
|||||||||||||
Assets at Fair Value |
||||||||||||||||||
Money market funds2 |
$ | 674 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 674 | ||||||||
Derivative contracts |
||||||||||||||||||
Electricity |
$ | | $ | 44 | $ | 91 | $ | (33 | ) | $ | 102 | |||||||
Fuel oil |
6 | | | (6 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Coal |
| 1 | | (1 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Total commodity contracts |
6 | 45 | 91 | (40 | ) | 102 | ||||||||||||
Total assets |
$ | 680 | $ | 45 | $ | 91 | $ | (40 | ) | $ | 776 | |||||||
Liabilities at Fair Value |
||||||||||||||||||
Derivative contracts |
||||||||||||||||||
Electricity |
$ | | $ | 9 | $ | 7 | $ | (9 | ) | $ | 7 | |||||||
Interest rate contracts |
| 22 | | | 22 | |||||||||||||
Total liabilities |
$ | | $ | 31 | $ | 7 | $ | (9 | ) | $ | 29 | |||||||
|
December 31, 2010 |
|||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assets at Fair Value |
||||||||||||||||||
Money market funds2 |
$ | 813 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | 813 | ||||||||
Derivative contracts |
||||||||||||||||||
Electricity |
$ | | $ | 70 | $ | 107 | $ | (61 | ) | $ | 116 | |||||||
Natural gas |
1 | | | (1 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Fuel oil |
8 | | | (8 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Total commodity contracts |
9 | 70 | 107 | (70 | ) | 116 | ||||||||||||
Total assets |
$ | 822 | $ | 70 | $ | 107 | $ | (70 | ) | $ | 929 | |||||||
Liabilities at Fair Value |
||||||||||||||||||
Derivative contracts |
||||||||||||||||||
Electricity |
$ | | $ | 12 | $ | 16 | $ | (21 | ) | $ | 7 | |||||||
Natural gas |
| 2 | | | 2 | |||||||||||||
Coal |
| 1 | | (1 | ) | | ||||||||||||
Total commodity contracts |
| 15 | 16 | (22 | ) | 9 | ||||||||||||
Interest rate contracts |
| 16 | | | 16 | |||||||||||||
Total liabilities |
$ | | $ | 31 | $ | 16 | $ | (22 | ) | $ | 25 | |||||||
11
The following table sets forth a summary of changes in the fair value of assets and liabilities, net categorized as Level 3:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
Fair value, net assets at beginning of period |
$ | 83 | $ | 199 | $ | 91 | $ | 173 | ||||||
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) |
||||||||||||||
Included in earnings1 |
18 | (18 | ) | 18 | 27 | |||||||||
Included in accumulated other comprehensive |
(4 | ) | (2 | ) | (3 | ) | 4 | |||||||
Purchases |
6 | 5 | 11 | 9 | ||||||||||
Settlements |
(19 | ) | (24 | ) | (31 | ) | (52 | ) | ||||||
Transfers in or out of Level 3 |
| 6 | (2 | ) | 5 | |||||||||
Fair value, net assets at end of period |
$ | 84 | $ | 166 | $ | 84 | $ | 166 | ||||||
Change during the period in unrealized gains |
$ | 14 | $ | (2 | ) | $ | 8 | $ | 32 | |||||
EME determines the fair value of transfers in and transfers out of each level at the end of each reporting period. There were no significant transfers between levels during the second quarters and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
Valuation Techniques used to Determine Fair Value
Level 1 includes financial assets and liabilities where unadjusted quoted prices in active markets are available at the measurement date for identical assets and liabilities. Financial assets and liabilities classified as Level 1 include exchange-traded derivatives and money market funds.
Level 2 pricing inputs include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets and inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the derivative instrument. Financial assets and liabilities utilizing Level 2 inputs include over-the-counter derivatives.
Derivative contracts that are over-the-counter traded are valued using pricing models and are generally classified as Level 2. Inputs to the pricing models include forward published or posted clearing prices from exchanges (New York Mercantile Exchange and Intercontinental Exchange) for similar instruments and discount rates. Forward market prices are developed based on the source that best represents trade activity in each market. Broker quotes or prices from exchanges are used to validate and corroborate the primary source. These price quotations reflect mid-market prices (average of bid and ask) and are obtained from sources believed to provide the most liquid market for the commodity. Broker quotes are incorporated when corroborated with other information which may include a combination of prices from exchanges, other brokers, and comparison to executed trades.
12
Level 3 includes financial assets and liabilities where fair value is determined using techniques that require significant unobservable inputs. Over-the-counter options, bilateral contracts, capacity contracts, qualifying facilities contracts, derivative contracts that trade infrequently (such as congestion revenue rights in the California market, financial transmission rights traded in markets outside California), long-term power agreements, and derivative contracts with counterparties that have significant nonperformance risks are classified as Level 3. In circumstances where EME cannot verify fair value with observable market transactions, it is possible that a different valuation model could produce a materially different estimate of fair value. As markets continue to develop and more pricing information becomes available, EME continues to assess valuation methodologies used to determine fair value.
For derivative contracts that trade infrequently (illiquid financial transmission rights and congestion revenue rights), changes in fair value are based on the hypothetical sale of illiquid positions. Objective criteria are reviewed, including system congestion and other underlying drivers and fair value is adjusted when it is concluded that a change in objective criteria would result in a new valuation that better reflects fair value. For illiquid long-term power agreements, fair value is based upon a discounting of future electricity and natural gas prices derived from a proprietary model using the risk free discount rate for a similar duration contract, adjusted for credit risk and market liquidity. Changes in fair value are based on changes to forward market prices, including forecasted prices for illiquid forward periods. The fair value of the majority of EME's derivatives that are classified as Level 3 is determined using uncorroborated non-binding broker quotes and models that may require EME to extrapolate short-term observable inputs in order to calculate fair value. Broker quotes are obtained from several brokers and compared against each other for reasonableness.
The carrying amounts and fair values of EME's long-term debt were as follows:
|
June 30, 2011 | December 31, 2010 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
Carrying Amount |
Fair Value |
Carrying Amount |
Fair Value |
|||||||||
Long-term debt, including current portion |
$ | 4,537 | $ | 3,886 | $ | 4,390 | $ | 3,670 | |||||
In assessing the fair value of EME's long-term debt, EME primarily uses quoted market prices, except for floating-rate debt for which the carrying amounts were considered a reasonable estimate of fair value.
The carrying amount of trade receivables, payables and short-term debt approximates fair value.
Note 5. Debt and Credit Agreements
On July 27, 2011, EME completed, through wholly owned subsidiaries, non-recourse financings to fund construction of the Walnut Creek project, a 479 MW natural gas-fired peaker plant in southern California. The financings included $122 million of letter of credit and working capital facilities, and
13
also included floating rate construction loans totaling $495 million (with initial fundings of $48 million) that will convert to 10-year amortizing term loans by June 30, 2013, subject to meeting specified conditions.
As of July 27, 2011, EME entered into interest rate swap agreements and forward-starting interest rate swap agreements that converted the floating rate London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) construction loans to fixed rates. Under the interest rate swap agreements, EME will pay fixed rates of an average of 0.81% through May 31, 2013. Under the forward-starting swaps agreements, EME will pay an average fixed rate of 3.59% beginning June 30, 2013 through May 31, 2023. Interest under the project-level construction term loan of $442 million initially accrues at LIBOR plus 2.25% and increases by 0.25% after the third, sixth and ninth anniversaries. Interest on the intermediate holding company construction term loan of $53 million accrues at LIBOR plus 4.00% over the term.
In May 2011, EME purchased, through wholly owned subsidiaries, select equipment at AES Southland Funding, LLC and its affiliates' (AES's) Huntington Beach facilities and leased such equipment back to an AES affiliate until its planned decommissioning at the end of 2012 for which AES retained the asset retirement obligation. The transaction resulted in an exemption for 90% of emission reduction credits needed to complete permitting activities for the Walnut Creek project. The purchase price of $56 million was recorded in property, plant and equipment, for the component related to permitting, and the remainder attributed to lease receivables. At June 30, 2011, EME's subsidiaries had outstanding $56 million in short-term, non-interest bearing notes payable related to the purchase, which were repaid upon the initial funding of the Walnut Creek project financing in July 2011.
Viento Funding II Wind Financing Amendment
In February 2011, EME completed, through its subsidiary, Viento Funding II, Inc., an amendment of its 2009 non-recourse financing of its interests in the Wildorado, San Juan Mesa and Elkhorn Ridge wind projects. The amendment increased the financing amount to $255 million, which included a $227 million ten-year term loan (expiring in December 2020), a $23 million seven-year letter of credit facility and a $5 million seven-year working capital facility. At June 30, 2011, $216 million was outstanding under this loan. The amount of outstanding letters of credit was $23 million. Interest under the term loan accrues at LIBOR plus 2.75% initially with the rate increasing 0.25% on every fourth anniversary. Viento Funding II, Inc. entered into interest rate swap agreements at 3.415% to hedge the majority of the variable interest rate under the term loan. Approximately $84 million under the swap agreements entered in connection with the 2009 financing were left unchanged at 3.175% and were outstanding at June 30, 2011. For further details regarding the interest rate swap agreements, see Note 6Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. In conjunction with the foregoing, EME expensed $3 million of deferred financing costs and incurred a loss of $2 million from the termination of interest rate swaps, included as part of interest expense on the consolidated statement of operations.
At June 30, 2011, standby letters of credit under EME's credit facility aggregated $116 million and were scheduled to expire as follows: $39 million in 2011 and $77 million in 2012. The aggregate amount includes $39 million of letters of credit issued for the benefit of the Southern California Edison Company, an affiliate of EME, which is the power purchase agreement counterparty for the Walnut Creek project. In addition, letters of credit under EME's subsidiaries' credit facilities aggregated $51 million, $3 million of which was under the Midwest Generation, LLC (Midwest Generation) credit facility, and were scheduled to expire as follows: $7 million in 2011, $16 million in 2012, $10 million in 2017, and $18 million in 2018. Certain letters of credit are subject to automatic annual renewal provisions.
14
Note 6. Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
EME uses derivative instruments to reduce its exposure to market risks that arise from price fluctuations of electricity, capacity, fuel, emission allowances, and transmission rights. Additionally, EME's financial results can be affected by fluctuations in interest rates. The derivative financial instruments vary in duration, ranging from a few days to several years, depending upon the instrument. To the extent that EME does not use derivative instruments to hedge these market risks, the unhedged portions will be subject to the risks and benefits of spot market price movements.
Risk management positions may be designated as cash flow hedges or economic hedges, which are derivatives that are not designated as cash flow hedges. Economic hedges are accounted for at fair value on EME's consolidated balance sheets with offsetting changes recorded on the consolidated statements of operations. For derivative instruments that qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the fair value is recognized, to the extent effective, on EME's consolidated balance sheets with offsetting changes in fair value recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss until the related forecasted transaction occurs. The results of derivative activities are recorded in cash flows from operating activities on the consolidated statements of cash flows.
Derivative instruments that are utilized for trading purposes are measured at fair value and included on the consolidated balance sheets as derivative assets or liabilities. Changes in fair value are recognized in operating revenues on the consolidated statements of operations.
Where EME's derivative instruments are subject to a master netting agreement and the criteria of authoritative guidance are met, EME presents its derivative assets and liabilities on a net basis on its consolidated balance sheets.
15
Notional Volumes of Derivative Instruments
The following table summarizes the notional volumes of derivatives used for hedging and trading activities:
June 30, 2011 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Hedging Activities | |
|||||||||||
Commodity |
Instrument |
Classification |
Unit of Measure |
Cash Flow Hedges |
Economic Hedges |
Trading Activities |
||||||||||
Electricity |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | GWh | 18,901 | 1 | 17,660 | 3 | 39,629 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | GWh | 203 | 1 | 17,750 | 3 | 42,863 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Capacity | Sales | MW-Day (in thousands) |
171 | 2 | | 17 | 2 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Capacity | Purchases | MW-Day (in thousands) |
17 | 2 | | 247 | 2 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Congestion | Sales | GWh | | 124 | 4 | 14,314 | 4 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Congestion | Purchases | GWh | | 5,459 | 4 | 287,221 | 4 | ||||||||
Natural gas |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | bcf | | 1.5 | 354.1 | ||||||||||
Natural gas |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | bcf | | 1.5 | 351.8 | ||||||||||
Fuel oil |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | barrels | | | 45,000 | ||||||||||
Fuel oil |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | barrels | | 240,000 | 70,000 | ||||||||||
Coal |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | tons | | | 2,564,250 | ||||||||||
Coal |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | tons | | | 2,564,250 | ||||||||||
(in millions) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Instrument |
Purpose |
Type of Hedge |
Notional Amount |
Expiration Date |
|||||
Amortizing interest rate swap | Convert floating rate (6-month LIBOR) debt to fixed rate (3.175%) debt | Cash flow | $ | 84 | June 2016 | ||||
Amortizing interest rate swap |
Convert floating rate (6-month LIBOR) debt to fixed rate (3.415%) debt |
Cash flow |
110 |
December 2020 |
|||||
Amortizing interest rate swap |
Convert floating rate (3-month LIBOR) debt to fixed rate (4.29%) debt |
Cash flow |
120 |
December 2025 |
|||||
Amortizing interest rate swap |
Convert floating rate (3-month LIBOR) debt to fixed rate (3.46%) debt |
Cash flow |
67 |
March 2026 |
|||||
16
December 31, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Hedging Activities | |
|||||||||||
Commodity |
Instrument |
Classification |
Unit of Measure |
Cash Flow Hedges |
Economic Hedges |
Trading Activities |
||||||||||
Electricity |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | GWh | 16,799 | 1 | 22,456 | 3 | 34,630 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | GWh | 408 | 1 | 22,931 | 3 | 37,669 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Capacity | Sales | MW-Day (in thousands) |
190 | 2 | | 136 | 2 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Capacity | Purchases | MW-Day (in thousands) |
8 | 2 | | 419 | 2 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Congestion | Sales | GWh | | 136 | 4 | 12,020 | 4 | ||||||||
Electricity |
Congestion | Purchases | GWh | | 1,143 | 4 | 187,689 | 4 | ||||||||
Natural gas |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | bcf | | | 30.6 | ||||||||||
Natural gas |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | bcf | | | 34.3 | ||||||||||
Fuel oil |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | barrels | | 250,000 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
Fuel oil |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | barrels | | 490,000 | 10,000 | ||||||||||
Coal |
Forwards/Futures | Sales | tons | | | 2,630,500 | ||||||||||
Coal |
Forwards/Futures | Purchases | tons | | | 2,645,500 | ||||||||||
(in millions) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Instrument |
Purpose |
Type of Hedge |
Notional Amount |
Expiration Date |
|||||
Amortizing interest rate swap | Convert floating rate (6-month LIBOR) debt to fixed rate (3.175%) debt | Cash flow | $ | 138 | June 2016 | ||||
Amortizing forward starting interest rate swap |
Convert floating rate (3-month LIBOR) debt to fixed rate (4.29%) debt |
Cash flow |
122 |
December 2025 |
|||||
Amortizing forward starting interest rate swap |
Convert floating rate (3-month LIBOR) debt to fixed rate (3.46%) debt |
Cash flow |
68 |
March 2026 |
|||||
17
Fair Value of Derivative Instruments
The following table summarizes the fair value of derivative instruments reflected on EME's consolidated balance sheets:
June 30, 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Derivative Assets | Derivative Liabilities | |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net Assets (Liabilities) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions) |
Short-term |
Long-term |
Subtotal |
Short-term |
Long-term |
Subtotal |
|||||||||||||||||
Non-trading activities |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow hedges |
$ | 27 | $ | 2 | $ | 29 | $ | 14 | $ | 34 | $ | 48 | $ | (19 | ) | ||||||||
Economic hedges |
60 | 4 | 64 | 51 | 1 | 52 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||
Trading activities |
141 | 88 | 229 | 98 | 20 | 118 | 111 | ||||||||||||||||
|
228 | 94 | 322 | 163 | 55 | 218 | 104 | ||||||||||||||||
Netting and collateral |
(189 | ) | (31 | ) | (220 | ) | (157 | ) | (32 | ) | (189 | ) | (31 | ) | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 39 | $ | 63 | $ | 102 | $ | 6 | $ | 23 | $ | 29 | $ | 73 | |||||||||
December 31, 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-trading activities |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow hedges |
$ | 54 | $ | 2 | $ | 56 | $ | 10 | $ | 25 | $ | 35 | $ | 21 | |||||||||
Economic hedges |
77 | 2 | 79 | 71 | | 71 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||
Trading activities |
184 | 103 | 287 | 148 | 29 | 177 | 110 | ||||||||||||||||
|
315 | 107 | 422 | 229 | 54 | 283 | 139 | ||||||||||||||||
Netting and |
(269 | ) | (37 | ) | (306 | ) | (223 | ) | (35 | ) | (258 | ) | (48 | ) | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 46 | $ | 70 | $ | 116 | $ | 6 | $ | 19 | $ | 25 | $ | 91 | |||||||||
Income Statement Impact of Derivative Instruments
The following table provides the cash flow hedge activity as part of accumulated other comprehensive loss:
|
Cash Flow Hedge Activity1 Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Income Statement Location |
|||||||
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||
Beginning of period derivative gains |
$ | 27 | $ | 175 | ||||
Effective portion of changes in fair value |
(13 | ) | 30 | |||||
Reclassification to net income |
(29 | ) | (122 | ) | Operating revenues | |||
End of period derivative gains (losses) |
$ | (15 | ) | $ | 83 | |||
18
For additional information, see Note 11Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss.
The portion of a cash flow hedge that does not offset the change in the value of the transaction being hedged, which is commonly referred to as the ineffective portion, is immediately recognized in earnings. EME recorded net gains (losses) of none and $(7) million during the second quarters of 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $2 million and $1 million during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, in operating revenues on the consolidated statements of operations representing the amount of cash flow hedge ineffectiveness.
The effect of realized and unrealized gains (losses) from derivative instruments used for economic hedging and trading purposes on the consolidated statements of operations is presented below:
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Income Statement Location |
||||||||||||||
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Economic hedges |
Operating revenues | $ | 20 | $ | (3 | ) | $ | 26 | $ | (7 | ) | ||||
|
Fuel | (2 | ) | (2 | ) | 4 | (1 | ) | |||||||
Trading activities |
Operating revenues |
41 |
33 |
57 |
80 |
||||||||||
Certain derivative instruments contain margin and collateral deposit requirements. Since EME's and its subsidiaries' credit ratings are below investment grade, EME and its subsidiaries have provided collateral in the form of cash and letters of credit for the benefit of derivative counterparties. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features was in an asset position at June 30, 2011 and, accordingly, the contingent features described below do not currently have liquidity exposure. Some hedge contracts include provisions related to a change in control or material adverse effect resulting from amendments or modifications to the related credit facility. Failure by EME or Midwest Generation to comply with these provisions may result in a termination event under the hedge contracts, enabling the counterparties to terminate and liquidate all outstanding transactions and demand immediate payment of amounts owed to them. Future increases in power prices could expose EME, Midwest Generation or Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. (EMMT) to termination payments or additional collateral postings.
Margin and Collateral Deposits
Margin and collateral deposits include cash deposited with counterparties and brokers as credit support under energy contracts. The amount of margin and collateral deposits generally varies based on changes in fair value of the related positions. EME nets counterparty receivables and payables where balances exist under master netting arrangements. EME presents the portion of its margin and cash collateral deposits netted with its derivative positions on its consolidated balance sheets. The following table summarizes margin and collateral deposits provided to and received from counterparties:
(in millions) |
June 30, 2011 |
December 31, 2010 |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collateral provided to counterparties |
||||||||
Offset against derivative liabilities |
$ | 3 | $ | 4 | ||||
Reflected in margin and collateral deposits |
50 | 59 | ||||||
Collateral received from counterparties |
||||||||
Offset against derivative assets |
33 | 52 | ||||||
19
The table below provides a reconciliation of income tax expense (benefit) computed at the federal statutory income tax rate to the income tax provision (benefit):
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes |
$ | (88 | ) | $ | (90 | ) | $ | (151 | ) | $ | 8 | |||
Provision (benefit) for income taxes at federal statutory rate of 35% |
$ | (30 | ) | $ | (31 | ) | $ | (53 | ) | $ | 3 | |||
Increase (decrease) in income tax from: |
||||||||||||||
State tax-net of federal provision (benefit) (excludes state tax settlement) |
(4 | ) | (6 | ) | (9 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||
Production tax credits, net |
(18 | ) | (19 | ) | (36 | ) | (33 | ) | ||||||
Resolution of 1986-2002 state tax issues |
| (20 | ) | | (20 | ) | ||||||||
Other |
(5 | ) | 6 | (4 | ) | 5 | ||||||||
Total benefit for income taxes from continuing operations |
$ | (57 | ) | $ | (70 | ) | $ | (102 | ) | $ | (47 | ) | ||
Effective tax rate |
65% | 78% | 68% | nm* | ||||||||||
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
Authoritative guidance related to accounting for uncertainty in income taxes requires an enterprise to recognize, in its financial statements, the best estimate of the impact of a tax position by determining if the weight of the available evidence indicates it is more likely than not, based solely on the technical merits, that the position will be sustained upon examination. The guidance requires the disclosure of all unrecognized tax benefits, which includes both the reserves recorded for tax positions on filed tax returns and the unrecognized portion of affirmative claims.
There was no change in unrecognized tax benefits from December 31, 2010. As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, $148 million of the unrecognized tax benefits, if recognized, would impact the effective tax rate.
Edison International's federal income tax returns and California combined franchise tax returns are currently open for years subsequent to 2002. In addition, specific California refund claims made by Edison International for years 1991 through 2002 remain subject to audit.
The Internal Revenue Service examination phase of tax years 2003 through 2006 was completed in the fourth quarter of 2010, which included a proposed adjustment related to EME. The EME-related proposed adjustment increases the taxable gain on the 2004 sale of EME's international assets, which if sustained, would result in a federal tax payment of approximately $189 million, including interest and
20
penalties through June 30, 2011 (the Internal Revenue Service has asserted a 40% penalty for understatement of tax liability related to this matter). Edison International disagrees with the proposed adjustment and filed a protest with the Internal Revenue Service in the first quarter of 2011. The disputed tax matter is currently being considered in appeals.
Accrued Interest and Penalties
The total amount of accrued interest and penalties related to EME's income tax liabilities was $36 million and $32 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.
The net after-tax interest expense (income) and penalties recognized in income tax expense was $2 million and $(8) million for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $3 million and $(6) million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Bonus Depreciation Impact on EME
The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) extended 50% bonus depreciation for qualifying property through 2012 and created a new 100% bonus depreciation for qualifying property placed in service between September 9, 2010 and December 31, 2011. These provisions are expected to result in a consolidated Edison International net operating loss for federal income tax purposes for 2011, and delay tax-allocation payments to EME until tax benefits are fully utilized by Edison International on a consolidated basis, which may take several years. EME expects to receive tax-allocation payments in 2011 as a result of the carryback of Edison International consolidated net operating losses for 2010 and subsequently make tax-allocation payments in 2012 as a result of reallocation of tax obligations from the expected Edison International consolidated net operating tax loss during 2011.
Note 8. Compensation and Benefit Plans
Pension Plans and Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions
During the six months ended June 30, 2011, EME made contributions of $7 million, and during the remainder of 2011, expects to make $13 million of additional contributions.
The following were components of pension expense:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||
Service cost |
$ | 5 | $ | 4 | $ | 9 | $ | 8 | |||||
Interest cost |
3 | 4 | 7 | 7 | |||||||||
Expected return on plan assets |
(3 | ) | (3 | ) | (6 | ) | (5 | ) | |||||
Amortization of net loss |
1 | | 2 | 1 | |||||||||
Total expense |
$ | 6 | $ | 5 | $ | 12 | $ | 11 | |||||
21
Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions
During the six months ended June 30, 2011, EME made contributions of $1 million, and during the remainder of 2011, expects to make $1 million of additional contributions.
The following were components of postretirement benefits expense:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||
Service cost |
$ | 1 | $ | | $ | 2 | $ | 1 | |||||
Interest cost |
1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
Amortization of prior service credit |
| (1 | ) | | (1 | ) | |||||||
Total expense |
$ | 2 | $ | 1 | $ | 5 | $ | 3 | |||||
Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies
At June 30, 2011, Midwest Generation and EME Homer City Generation L.P. (Homer City) had commitments to purchase coal from third-party suppliers at fixed prices, subject to adjustment clauses. These commitments are estimated to aggregate $634 million, summarized as follows: $277 million for the remainder of 2011, $304 million in 2012 and $53 million in 2013. In July 2011, Midwest Generation entered into additional contractual agreements for the purchase of coal. These commitments are estimated to be $6 million for the remainder of 2011, $28 million for 2012, $145 million for 2013, and $150 million for 2014.
At June 30, 2011, EME had commitments to purchase wind turbines of $45 million due in 2011 and $8 million due in 2012. Based on a June 2011 contract amendment, EME's failure to schedule turbine delivery by September 2011 would result in a termination obligation equal to its turbine deposit, which would result in a $29 million charge against earnings. EME has identified a project in which to place these turbines. However, there is no assurance that development will be completed and the turbines will be used for this project.
On October 8, 2010, an agreement was reached to settle disputes included in the complaint filed by EME against Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. with respect to a wind turbine generator supply agreement. As a result of this agreement, EME may elect to deploy up to 60 additional wind turbines (aggregating 144 MW) that were part of the original contract, or may be obligated to make a payment of up to $30 million following the end of the three-year period if it has not elected to deploy the additional turbines and if certain other criteria apply.
22
At June 30, 2011, EME's subsidiaries had firm commitments to spend approximately $242 million during the remainder of 2011, $205 million in 2012 and $19 million in 2013 on capital and construction expenditures. These expenditures primarily relate to the Walnut Creek project, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) equipment at the Midwest Generation plants, and the construction of wind projects. EME intends to fund these expenditures through project level financing, U.S. Treasury grants, Midwest Generation and EME lines of credit, if available, cash on hand and cash generated from operations.
EME and certain of its subsidiaries have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnity agreements which are issued in the normal course of business. The contracts discussed below included performance guarantees.
Environmental Indemnities Related to the Midwest Generation Plants
In connection with the acquisition of the Midwest Generation plants, EME agreed to indemnify Commonwealth Edison Company (Commonwealth Edison) with respect to specified environmental liabilities before and after December 15, 1999, the date of sale. The indemnification obligations are reduced by any insurance proceeds and tax benefits related to such indemnified claims and are subject to a requirement that Commonwealth Edison takes all reasonable steps to mitigate losses related to any such indemnification claim. Also, in connection with the sale-leaseback transaction related to the Powerton and Joliet Stations in Illinois, EME agreed to indemnify the lessors for specified environmental liabilities. These indemnities are not limited in term or amount. Due to the nature of the obligations under these indemnities, a maximum potential liability cannot be determined. Commonwealth Edison has advised EME that Commonwealth Edison believes it is entitled to indemnification for all liabilities, costs, and expenses that it may be required to bear as a result of the litigation discussed below under "ContingenciesMidwest Generation New Source Review and Other Litigation." Except as discussed below, EME has not recorded a liability related to these environmental indemnities.
Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on February 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of Midwest Generation's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate); pursuant to the automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February 2012. There were approximately 222 cases for which Midwest Generation was potentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at June 30, 2011. Midwest Generation had recorded a liability of $55 million at June 30, 2011 related to this contractual indemnity.
The amounts recorded by Midwest Generation for the asbestos-related liability are based upon a number of assumptions. Future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected.
23
Environmental Indemnity Related to the Homer City Plant
In connection with the acquisition of the Homer City plant, Homer City agreed to indemnify the sellers with respect to specified environmental liabilities before and after the date of sale. EME guaranteed this obligation of Homer City. Also, in connection with the sale-leaseback transaction related to the Homer City plant, Homer City agreed to indemnify the lessors for specified environmental liabilities. Due to the nature of the obligations under these indemnity provisions, they are not subject to a maximum potential liability and do not have expiration dates. EME has not recorded a liability related to this indemnity. For discussion of the New Source Review lawsuit filed against Homer City, see "ContingenciesHomer City New Source Review and Other Litigation."
Indemnities Provided under Asset Sale and Sale-Leaseback Agreements
The asset sale agreements for the sale of EME's international assets contain indemnities from EME to the purchasers, including indemnification for taxes imposed with respect to operations of the assets prior to the sale and for pre-closing environmental liabilities. Not all indemnities under the asset sale agreements have specific expiration dates. At June 30, 2011, EME had recorded a liability of $45 million related to these matters.
In connection with the sale of various domestic assets, EME has from time to time provided indemnities to the purchasers for taxes imposed with respect to operations of the assets prior to the sale. EME has also provided indemnities to purchasers for items specified in each agreement (for example, specific pre-existing litigation matters and/or environmental conditions). Not all indemnities under the asset sale agreements have specific expiration dates. Due to the nature of these potential obligations, a maximum potential liability cannot be determined and has not been recorded as a liability related to these indemnities.
In connection with the sale-leaseback transactions related to the Homer City plant in Pennsylvania, the Powerton and Joliet Stations in Illinois and, previously, the Collins Station in Illinois, EME and several of its subsidiaries entered into tax indemnity agreements. Although the Collins Station lease terminated in April 2004, Midwest Generation's tax indemnity agreement with the former lease equity investor is still in effect. Under these tax indemnity agreements, these entities agreed to indemnify the lessors in the sale-leaseback transactions for specified adverse tax consequences that could result in certain situations set forth in each tax indemnity agreement, including specified defaults under the respective leases. The potential indemnity obligations under these tax indemnity agreements could be significant. Due to the nature of these potential obligations, EME cannot determine a maximum potential liability which would be triggered by a valid claim from the lessors. EME has not recorded a liability for these matters.
EME provides other indemnifications through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. These include, among other things, indemnities for specified environmental liabilities and for income taxes with respect to assets sold. EME's obligations under these agreements may or may not be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances EME may have recourse against third parties. EME has not recorded a liability related to these indemnities. The overall maximum amount of the obligations under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated.
24
In addition to the matters disclosed in these notes, EME is involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. EME believes the outcome of these other proceedings will not materially affect its results of operations or liquidity.
Midwest Generation New Source Review and Other Litigation
In August 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the State of Illinois filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Midwest Generation or Commonwealth Edison performed repair or replacement projects at six Illinois coal-fired electric generating stations in violation of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements and of the New Source Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including alleged requirements to obtain a construction permit and to install controls sufficient to meet best available control technology (BACT) emission rates. The US EPA also alleged that Midwest Generation and Commonwealth Edison violated certain operating permit requirements under Title V of the CAA. Finally, the US EPA alleged violations of certain opacity and particulate matter standards at the Midwest Generation plants. In addition to seeking penalties ranging from $25,000 to $37,500 per violation, per day, the complaint calls for an injunction ordering Midwest Generation to install controls sufficient to meet BACT emission rates at all units subject to the complaint; to obtain new PSD or New Source Review permits for those units; to amend its applications under Title V of the CAA; to conduct audits of its operations to determine whether any additional modifications have occurred; and to offset and mitigate the harm to public health and the environment caused by the alleged CAA violations. The remedies sought by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit could go well beyond the requirements of the Combined Pollutant Standard (CPS). Several Chicago-based environmental action groups have intervened in the case.
Nine of ten PSD claims have been dismissed, along with claims related to alleged violations of Title V of the CAA to the extent based on the dismissed PSD claims. The court has also dismissed all claims asserted against Commonwealth Edison and EME. The court denied a motion to dismiss a claim by the Chicago-based environmental action groups for civil penalties in the remaining PSD claim, but noted that the plaintiffs will be required to convince the court that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. The court did not address other counts in the complaint that allege violations of opacity and particulate matter limitations under the Illinois State Implementation Plan and Title V of the CAA. Trial of the liability portion of the case is scheduled to commence June 3, 2013.
In May 2011, two complaints were filed against Midwest Generation in the Northern District of Illinois by residents living near the Crawford and Fisk facilities on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, each asserting claims of nuisance, negligence, trespass, and strict liability. The plaintiffs seek to have their suits certified as a class action and request injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
Adverse decisions in these cases could involve penalties and remedial actions that could have a material impact on the financial condition and results of operations of Midwest Generation and EME. EME cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the impact on the Midwest Generation plants, or its and Midwest Generation's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
25
Homer City New Source Review and Other Litigation
In January 2011, the US EPA filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Homer City, the sale-leaseback owner participants of the Homer City plant, and two prior owners of the Homer City plant. The complaint alleges violations of the PSD and Title V provisions of the CAA, as a result of projects in the 1990s performed by prior owners without PSD permits and the subsequent failure to incorporate emissions limitations that meet BACT into the station's Title V operating permit. In addition to seeking penalties ranging from $32,500 to $37,500 per violation, per day, the complaint calls for an injunction ordering Homer City to install controls sufficient to meet BACT emission rates at all units subject to the complaint; to obtain new PSD or New Source Review permits for those units; to amend its applications under Title V of the CAA; to conduct audits of its operations to determine whether any additional modifications have occurred; and to offset and mitigate the harm to public health and the environment caused by the alleged CAA violations. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the State of New York and the State of New Jersey have intervened in the lawsuit.
Also in January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Homer City, the sale-leaseback owner participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of the Homer City plant, EME, and Edison International, claiming that emissions from the Homer City plant had adversely affected their health and property values. The plaintiffs seek to have their suit certified as a class action and request injunctive relief, the funding of a health assessment study and medical monitoring, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
In April 2011, Homer City filed motions to dismiss both complaints. Adverse decisions in these cases could involve penalties, remedial actions and damages that could have a material impact on the financial condition and results of operations of Homer City and EME. EME cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the impact on the Homer City plant, or its and Homer City's results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Legislative and regulatory activities by federal, state and local authorities in the United States relating to energy and the environment impose numerous restrictions and requirements with respect to the operation of EME subsidiaries' existing facilities and affect the timing, cost, location, design, construction, and operation of new facilities by EME's subsidiaries, as well as the cost of mitigating the environmental impacts of past operations.
With respect to potential liabilities arising under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, commonly referred to as CERCLA, or similar laws for the investigation and remediation of contaminated property, EME accrues a liability to the extent the costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Midwest Generation had accrued approximately $7 million at June 30, 2011 for estimated environmental investigation and remediation costs for the Midwest Generation plants. This estimate is based upon the number of sites, the scope of work and the estimated costs for investigation and/or remediation where such expenditures could be reasonably estimated. Future estimated costs may vary based on changes in regulations or requirements of federal, state or local governmental agencies, changes in technology, and actual costs of disposal. In addition, future remediation costs will be affected by the nature and extent of contamination discovered at the sites that require remediation. Given the prior history of the operations at its facilities, EME cannot be certain that the existence or extent of all contamination at its sites has been fully identified.
26
Note 10. Environmental Developments
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
On July 6, 2011, the US EPA adopted its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) which will replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) beginning on January 1, 2012. CSAPR is the final form of a previously proposed replacement for the CAIR, called the Clean Air Transport Rule that was released in 2010. CSAPR establishes emissions reductions for annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and annual and ozone season nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in two phases: a first phase effective January 1, 2012 and, in most states subject to the program (including Illinois and Pennsylvania), a second phase effective January 1, 2014 that requires additional reductions in annual SO2 emissions.
CSAPR, like the CAIR, is an allowance-based regulation that provides for emissions trading. Under CSAPR, the amount of actual SO2 or NOx emissions from operations will need to be matched by a sufficient amount of SO2 or NOx allowances that are either allocated or purchased in the open market. In connection with CSAPR, the US EPA has, for each phase, established SO2 and NOx allowance allocations for each state and each generating unit subject to the regulation, and at the close of the annual compliance period, units must surrender allowances for each ton of SO2 and NOx emitted or face penalties. While trading of allowances is permitted within designated groups of states, the rule provides for enhanced penalties against a unit that surrenders allowances in excess of certain predefined limits for itself and for the state in which it is located.
The installation of SO2 controls will require capital commitments for the Midwest Generation plants well in advance of the 2014 effective date, some of which will be expended in 2011, in order to meet regulatory deadlines. EME believes that Midwest Generation's current environmental remediation plan, including allocated allowances and capital expenditures, required to meet the CPS will also comply with the requirements of CSAPR. However, the SO2 allowances allocated to Homer City in CSAPR Phase I (25,797 tons in 2012 and 2013) are significantly lower than the amount that would be required based on Homer City's historical emissions (2010 SO2 emissions were 112,951 tons). Therefore, pending installation of additional equipment for Units 1 and 2 (Homer City's Unit 3 is equipped with a wet scrubber flue gas desulfurization system to meet environmental standards), Homer City expects that it will be required to procure additional allowances. It is unclear at this time whether SO2 allowances in sufficient quantity and at prices that Homer City can pass through in power prices will be available in 2012 and 2013. Also, Homer City's SO2 shortfall is expected to exceed limits on the number of allowances it will be permitted to surrender, and, therefore, may subject Homer City to penalties in certain cases. Accordingly, Homer City is evaluating alternative options, including reduced dispatch and fuel switching, for complying with Phase I of CSAPR. Failure by Homer City to develop and implement a Phase I compliance plan based on allowances could result in its modifying operations at one or more units or significantly curtailing power output. The cost of allowances, together with possible operational impacts or reductions of output, which may be required to comply with Phase I of CSAPR, could have a material effect on Homer City.
Homer City has begun work on designing SO2 and particulate emissions control equipment for Units 1 and 2. While the Phase II SO2 emission allowances under CSAPR (11,068 tons) are less than were contemplated under the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule, the additional reductions are not expected to materially change the design for the SO2 controls at Units 1 and 2. The installation of those SO2 controls will require capital commitments for the Homer City plant well in advance of the 2014 effective date, some of which will be expended in 2011, in order to meet regulatory deadlines. Given the relatively short period of time before Phase II of CSAPR takes effect in 2014, there is no assurance that Homer City will be able to complete all the work that will be required before the deadline. Homer
27
City is continuing to review technologies available to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions; however, it has not determined the most effective and efficient technology to meet all requirements that may be imposed on it. Consequently, the timing, selection of technology and ultimate capital costs remain uncertain. Based on preliminary estimates, Homer City currently believes the cost of such equipment may be between $600 million and $700 million.
Homer City does not currently have sufficient capital and does not expect to generate sufficient capital from operations to fund such retrofits and will have to seek financing, which will be subject to decisions by Homer City's lessors, holders of the pass-through certificates and new providers of capital funding. There is no assurance that sufficient financing will be obtained or will not result in significant dilution of Homer City's interest in the Homer City plant.
Proposed Hazardous Air Pollutant Regulations
In March 2011, the US EPA issued proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, limiting emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electrical generating units. This regulation is expected to be finalized by November 2011. Based on its continuing review, EME does not expect that these standards, if adopted as proposed, would require Midwest Generation to make material changes to the approach to compliance with state and federal environmental regulations that it contemplates for CPS compliance. EME also does not expect that these standards, if adopted as proposed, would require Homer City to make additional capital requirements beyond those that would be required to comply with CSAPR.
In March 2011, the US EPA issued proposed standards under the federal Clean Water Act which would affect cooling water intake structures at generating facilities. The standards are intended to protect aquatic organisms by reducing capture in screens attached to cooling water intake structures (impingement) and in the water volume brought into the facilities (entrainment). The regulations are expected to be finalized by July 2012. EME is evaluating the proposed standards and believes, from a preliminary review, that compliance with the proposed standards regarding impingement will be achievable for both the Midwest Generation plants and the Homer City plant without incurring material additional capital expenditures or operating costs. The required measures to comply with the proposed standards regarding entrainment are subject to the discretion of the permitting authority, and EME is unable at this time to assess potential costs of compliance, which could be significant for the Midwest Generation plants, but are not expected to be material for the Homer City plant, which already has cooling towers.
Greenhouse Gas Litigation Developments
In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed public nuisance claims against five power companies, ruling that the CAA and the US EPA actions it authorizes displace federal common law nuisance claims that might arise from of the emission of greenhouse gases. The court also affirmed the Second Circuit's determination that at least some of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case. The court did not address whether the CAA also preempts state law claims arising from the same circumstances.
Parties to the Kivalina case, the appeal of which was deferred before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pending the Supreme Court's ruling described above, have requested that the appeal recommence and have asked for permission to file additional briefs on the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Kivalina case was brought by the Alaskan Native Village of Kivalina seeking damages of up to $400 million for the cost of relocating the village because the plaintiffs claim that the
28
Arctic ice that has protected the village is melting as a result of climate change. The federal district court dismissed the case against Edison International and the other defendants in October 2009. Due to the nature of these potential obligations, EME is unable to estimate the potential liability, if any.
On May 27, 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, naming among a large number of defendants, Edison International, EME, and three wholly owned subsidiaries of EME (Edison Mission Energy Fuel, Edison Mission Energy Petroleum, and Edison Mission Energy Services). Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' activities resulted in emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases that have contributed to climate change and sea level rise, which in turn are alleged to have increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for negligence, public and private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The claims in this lawsuit are nearly identical to a subset of the claims that were raised against many of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was filed in, and dismissed by, the same federal district court where the current case has been filed.
Note 11. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss
Accumulated other comprehensive loss consisted of the following:
(in millions) |
Unrealized Gains (Losses) on Cash Flow Hedges |
Unrecognized Losses and Prior Service Adjustments, Net1 |
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Balance at December 31, 2010 |
$ | 16 | $ | (47 | ) | $ | (31 | ) | |||
Current period change |
(25 | ) | 1 | (24 | ) | ||||||
Balance at June 30, 2011 |
$ | (9 | ) | $ | (46 | ) | $ | (55 | ) | ||
Included in accumulated other comprehensive loss at June 30, 2011 was $4 million, net of tax, of unrealized gains on commodity-based cash flow hedges; and $13 million, net of tax, of unrealized losses related to interest rate hedges. The maximum period over which a commodity cash flow hedge is designated is May 31, 2014.
Unrealized gains on commodity hedges consist of futures and forward electricity contracts that qualify for hedge accounting. These gains arise because current forecasts of future electricity prices in these markets are lower than the contract prices. Approximately $8 million of unrealized gains on cash flow hedges, net of tax, are expected to be reclassified into earnings during the next 12 months. Management expects that reclassification of net unrealized gains will increase energy revenues recognized at market prices. Actual amounts ultimately reclassified into earnings over the next 12 months could vary materially from this estimated amount as a result of changes in market conditions.
29
Note 12. Supplemental Cash Flows Information
|
Six Months Ended June 30, | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||
Cash paid (received) |
||||||||
Interest (net of amount capitalized)1 |
$ | 142 | $ | 142 | ||||
Income taxes |
6 | (68 | ) | |||||
Cash payments under plant operating leases |
189 | 197 | ||||||
Non-cash activities from consolidation of variable interest entity |
||||||||
Assets |
$ | | $ | 94 | ||||
Liabilities |
| 99 | ||||||
Non-cash activities from deconsolidation of variable interest entities |
||||||||
Assets |
$ | | $ | 249 | ||||
Liabilities |
| 253 | ||||||
Non-cash activities from accrued capital expenditures |
$ | 47 | $ | 47 | ||||
Purchase of equipment with notes payable |
$ | 56 | $ | | ||||
Note 13. Discontinued Operations
Summarized financial information for discontinued operations is as follows:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||
Income (loss) before income taxes |
$ | | $ | 4 | $ | (2 | ) | $ | 15 | ||||
Provision for income taxes |
1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |||||||||
Income (loss) from operations of discontinued foreign subsidiaries |
$ | (1 | ) | $ | 3 | $ | (3 | ) | $ | 9 | |||
The 2011 loss was due primarily to changes in foreign exchange rates. The 2010 income was primarily attributable to the expiration of a contract indemnity during the first six months of 2010 and changes in foreign exchange rates.
30
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
This quarterly report on Form 10-Q contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements reflect EME's current expectations and projections about future events based on EME's knowledge of present facts and circumstances and assumptions about future events and include any statement that does not directly relate to a historical or current fact. Other information distributed by EME that is incorporated in this report, or that refers to or incorporates this report, may also contain forward-looking statements. In this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, the words "expects," "believes," "anticipates," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "plans," "probable," "may," "will," "could," "would," "should," and variations of such words and similar expressions, or discussions of strategy or plans, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements necessarily involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. Some of the risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause results to differ from those currently expected, or that otherwise could impact EME or its subsidiaries, include but are not limited to:
31
ability of EME and its subsidiaries to provide sufficient collateral in support of their hedging activities and purchases of fuel;
Additional information about risks and uncertainties, including more detail about the factors described above, is contained throughout this MD&A and in "Item 1A. Risk Factors" on page 29 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. Readers are urged to read this entire quarterly report on Form 10-Q and the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, including the information incorporated by reference, and to carefully consider the risks, uncertainties and other factors that affect EME's business. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and EME is not obligated to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements. Readers should review future reports filed by EME with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This MD&A discusses material changes in the results of operations, financial condition and other developments of EME since December 31, 2010, and as compared to the second quarter of 2010 and the six months ended June 30, 2010. This discussion presumes that the reader has read or has access to the MD&A included in Item 7 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
32
EME's competitive power generation business primarily consists of the generation and sale into the PJM market on a merchant basis of energy and capacity from its approximately 7,000 megawatts of coal-fired power plants and sales from its primarily contracted renewable projects. The profitability of the coal operations is expected to be significantly lower in 2011 compared to 2010 as a result of lower realized energy prices driven by the expiration of hedge contracts, higher fuel costs and outages at the Homer City plant during the first half of 2011. In addition, the profitability of EME's Midwest Generation plants is expected to be adversely affected beginning in 2012 by a decline in capacity prices (projected to begin in June 2012) and higher rail transportation costs (due to the expiration at the end of 2011 of a favorable long-term rail contract), and EME's Homer City plant is expected to be adversely impacted by new environmental regulations discussed further below. For discussion of energy and fuel price risks, see "Market Risk ExposuresCommodity Price Risk" and refer to "Market Risks" in Item 1A on page 33 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. As a result, EME may incur net losses during 2011 and in subsequent years unless energy and capacity prices increase or its costs decline.
Highlights of Operating Results
Net income (loss) attributable to EME common shareholder is composed of the following components:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
Change |
2011 |
2010 |
Change |
||||||||||||||
Net income (loss) attributable to EME common shareholder |
$ | (32 | ) | $ | (17 | ) | $ | (15 | ) | $ | (52 | ) | $ | 64 | $ | (116 | ) | |||
Non-Core Items |
||||||||||||||||||||
Income (loss) from discontinued operations |
(1 | ) | 3 | (4 | ) | (3 | ) | 9 | (12 | ) | ||||||||||
Settlement of tax disputes |
| 20 | (20 | ) | | 20 | (20 | ) | ||||||||||||
Total non-core items |
(1 | ) | 23 | (24 | ) | (3 | ) | 29 | (32 | ) | ||||||||||
Core Earnings (Losses) |
(31 | ) | (40 | ) | 9 | (49 | ) | 35 | (84 | ) | ||||||||||
EME's earnings are prepared in accordance with GAAP. Management uses core earnings (losses) internally for financial planning and for analysis of performance. Core earnings (losses) are also used when communicating with analysts and investors regarding EME's earnings results to facilitate comparisons of EME's performance from period to period. Core earnings (losses) are a non-GAAP financial measure and may not be comparable to those of other companies. Core earnings (losses) are defined as net income (loss) attributable to EME's shareholder excluding income (loss) from discontinued operations and income or loss from significant discrete items that management does not consider representative of ongoing earnings, such as: exit activities, sale of assets, early debt extinguishment costs, other activities that are no longer continuing, asset impairments, and certain tax, regulatory or legal proceedings.
33
EME's second quarter 2011 core earnings were higher than second quarter 2010 core earnings primarily due to the following pre-tax items:
These increases were partially offset by the following:
EME's core earnings for the six months ended June 30, 2011 were lower than core earnings for the six months ended June 30, 2010 primarily due to the following pre-tax items:
These decreases were partially offset by the following:
34
Non-core item for EME included:
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
On July 6, 2011, the US EPA adopted its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) which will replace the CAIR beginning on January 1, 2012. CSAPR is the final form of a previously proposed replacement for the CAIR, called the Clean Air Transport Rule that was released in 2010. CSAPR establishes emissions reductions for annual SO2 emissions and annual and ozone season NOx emissions in two phases: a first phase effective January 1, 2012 and, in most states subject to the program (including Illinois and Pennsylvania), a second phase effective January 1, 2014 that requires additional reductions in annual SO2 emissions.
CSAPR, like the CAIR, is an allowance-based regulation that provides for emissions trading. Under CSAPR, the amount of actual SO2 or NOx emissions from operations will need to be matched by a sufficient amount of SO2 or NOx allowances that are either allocated or purchased in the open market. In connection with CSAPR, the US EPA has, for each phase, established SO2 and NOx allowance allocations for each state and each generating unit subject to the regulation, and at the close of the annual compliance period, units must surrender allowances for each ton of SO2 and NOx emitted or face penalties. While trading of allowances is permitted within designated groups of states, the rule provides for enhanced penalties against a unit that surrenders allowances in excess of certain predefined limits for itself and for the state in which it is located.
The installation of SO2 controls will require capital commitments for the Midwest Generation plants well in advance of the 2014 effective date, some of which will be expended in 2011, in order to meet regulatory deadlines. EME believes that Midwest Generation's current environmental remediation plan, including allocated allowances and capital expenditures, required to meet the CPS will also comply with the requirements of CSAPR. However, the SO2 allowances allocated to Homer City in CSAPR Phase I (25,797 tons in 2012 and 2013) are significantly lower than the amount that would be required based on Homer City's historical emissions (2010 SO2 emissions were 112,951 tons). Therefore, pending installation of additional equipment for Units 1 and 2 (Homer City's Unit 3 is equipped with a wet scrubber flue gas desulfurization system to meet environmental standards), Homer City expects that it will be required to procure additional allowances. It is unclear at this time whether SO2 allowances in sufficient quantity and at prices that Homer City can pass through in power prices will be available in 2012 and 2013. Also, Homer City's SO2 shortfall is expected to exceed limits on the number of allowances it will be permitted to surrender, and, therefore, may subject Homer City to penalties in certain cases. Accordingly, Homer City is evaluating alternative options, including reduced dispatch and fuel switching, for complying with Phase I of CSAPR. Failure by Homer City to develop and implement a Phase I compliance plan based on allowances could result in its modifying operations at one or more units or significantly curtailing power output. The cost of allowances, together with possible operational impacts or reductions of output, which may be required to comply with Phase I of CSAPR, could have a material effect on Homer City.
Homer City has begun work on designing SO2 and particulate emissions control equipment for Units 1 and 2. While the Phase II SO2 emission allowances under CSAPR (11,068 tons) are less than were contemplated under the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule, the additional reductions are not expected to materially change the design for the SO2 controls at Units 1 and 2. The installation of those SO2
35
controls will require capital commitments for the Homer City plant well in advance of the 2014 effective date, some of which will be expended in 2011, in order to meet regulatory deadlines. Given the relatively short period of time before Phase II of CSAPR takes effect in 2014, there is no assurance that Homer City will be able to complete all the work that will be required before the deadline. Homer City is continuing to review technologies available to reduce SO2 and mercury emissions; however, it has not determined the most effective and efficient technology to meet all requirements that may be imposed on it. Consequently, the timing, selection of technology and ultimate capital costs remain uncertain. Based on preliminary estimates, Homer City currently believes the cost of such equipment may be between $600 million and $700 million.
In March 2011, the US EPA issued proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, limiting emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electrical generating units. This regulation is expected to be finalized by November 2011. Based on its continuing review, EME does not expect these standards, if adopted as proposed, would require Homer City to make additional capital requirements beyond those that would be required to comply with CSAPR.
Homer City does not currently have sufficient capital and does not expect to generate sufficient funds from operations to complete retrofits effectively required by CSAPR Phase II. EME is under no legal obligation to provide funding and has chosen not to. Accordingly, Homer City will need third-party capital to undertake the retrofits required by 2014 under CSAPR. However, restrictions under the agreements entered into as part of Homer City's 2001 sale-leaseback transaction affect, and in some cases significantly limit or prohibit, Homer City's ability to incur indebtedness or make capital expenditures. Consequently, the installation of environmental compliance equipment will be dependent on lessors, holders of the pass-through certificates and new providers of capital funding. Homer City has commenced discussions with its lessors concerning such matters. There can be no assurance that Homer City will be able to raise the financing necessary to install the required SO2 control equipment in a timely manner or on terms that will not result in a significant dilution of its interest in the Homer City plant.
Failure of Homer City to install the required equipment or determine an economic manner to continue plant operations could result in a loss of its lease and a cessation of plant operations. Cessation of plant operations or a significant reduction of the value of Homer City's interest in the plant could have a material adverse effect on future financial results, cash flow, financial flexibility and assets of EME compared to historical levels. At June 30, 2011, the book value of EME's investment in Homer City was approximately $1.1 billion.
Midwest Generation Environmental Compliance Plans and Costs
During 2011, Midwest Generation continued its permitting and planning activities for NOx and SO2 controls to meet the requirements of the CPS. Based on its continuing review, EME also does not expect the US EPA issued proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, if adopted, would require Midwest Generation to make material changes to the approach to compliance with state and federal environmental regulations that it contemplates for CPS compliance. Midwest Generation expects to continue to develop and implement a compliance program that includes the use of activated carbon injection, upgrades to particulate removal systems and dry sorbent injection, combined with its use of low sulfur PRB coal, to meet emissions limits for criteria pollutants, such as NOx and SO2 as well as for hazardous air pollutants, such as mercury, acid gas and non-mercury metals. Based on stack tests performed at various Midwest Generation plants, Midwest Generation believes that currently installed activated carbon injection and particulate removal equipment is
36
sufficient to achieve or exceed the mercury standards outlined in the US EPA's existing and proposed rules. Midwest Generation does not anticipate a material change to its current approach in order to comply with CSAPR.
In February 2011, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency issued construction permits authorizing Midwest Generation to install a dry sorbent injection system using Trona or other sodium-based sorbents at the Powerton Station's Units 5 and 6. Midwest Generation had previously received construction permits for dry sorbent injection installation at Waukegan Station's Unit 7.
Decisions regarding whether or not to proceed with retrofitting units to comply with CPS requirements for SO2 emissions remain subject to a number of factors, such as market conditions, regulatory and legislative developments, and forecasted commodity prices and capital and operating costs applicable at the time decisions are required or made. Midwest Generation could also elect to temporarily or permanently shut down units, instead of installing controls, to be in compliance with the CPS.
Therefore, decisions about any particular combination of retrofits and shutdowns Midwest Generation may ultimately employ also remain subject to conditions applicable at the time decisions are required or made. Final decisions on whether to install controls, to install particular kinds of controls, and to actually expend capital that is budgeted may not occur until 2012 for some of the units and potentially later for others, subject to the requirements of the CPS and other applicable regulations.
In March 2008, Walnut Creek Energy, a subsidiary of EME, was awarded a 10-year power sales agreement starting in 2013 for the output from its planned Walnut Creek project, a 479 MW natural gas-fired peaker plant in southern California. The contract was issued by Southern California Edison Company, through a competitive bidding process. Construction began on the Walnut Creek project in June 2011. The Walnut Creek project has estimated construction costs of $575 million and is expected to achieve commercial operation in 2013. In July 2011, Walnut Creek Energy completed non-recourse financings to fund the Walnut Creek project. The Walnut Creek construction loans, including the project level and intermediate holding company loans, have an effective interest rate of 3.11% including the impact of the interest rate swaps through May 31, 2013. For more information, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 5. Debt and Credit AgreementsProject FinancingsWalnut Creek."
At June 30, 2011, EME, as a holding company, had cash and cash equivalents of $237 million to meet liquidity needs as well as $448 million of capacity under its credit facility. EME's subsidiary, EMMT, also had cash and cash equivalents of $195 million at June 30, 2011, which can be loaned or distributed to EME subject to applicable laws. In addition, at June 30, 2011, Midwest Generation had cash and cash equivalents of $254 million to meet liquidity needs.
Midwest Generation has not yet committed to the completion of environmental compliance activities for its plants. Additional expenditures for NOx and SO2 controls through 2013 are estimated at $535 million based on an assumption that Midwest Generation would retrofit all units over the compliance period, which extends to 2018. Depending upon the facilities selected to be retrofitted, the cost of such retrofitting, and the timing of funding requirements beyond the near term, Midwest Generation may utilize operating cash flow, draw on its credit facilities to the extent these are available when funding is required, or seek debt financing to fund capital expenditures.
37
Capital expenditures to complete Walnut Creek and various renewable energy projects for the remainder of 2011 are projected to be $290 million at June 30, 2011. In July, EME secured $495 million in construction and term financing for the Walnut Creek project. In addition, EME used the proceeds of the Laredo Ridge U.S. Treasury grant of $57 million received in July 2011 to repay the Laredo Ridge bridge loan. EME anticipates that the capital investment for renewable energy projects under construction will be funded using a combination of construction and term financings, U.S. Treasury grants and cash on hand. In addition to the U.S. Treasury grant received in July, U.S. Treasury grants of approximately $360 million are anticipated in 2011 and 2012 based on estimated eligible construction costs for renewable projects.
Edison International's utilization of net operating losses and production tax credits from EME in its consolidated return impacts EME's liquidity. The bonus depreciation extension enacted in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the 2010 Tax Relief Act is expected to result in delays in EME's receipt of future tax-allocation payments. For more information, see "Liquidity and Capital ResourcesEME's Liquidity as a Holding CompanyIntercompany Tax-Allocation Agreement," "Liquidity and Capital ResourcesAvailable LiquidityBonus Depreciation Impact on EME" and refer to "Liquidity Risks" in Item 1A on page 29 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
For information regarding liquidity, see "Liquidity and Capital ResourcesDividend Restrictions in Major Financings" and refer to "Liquidity Risks" in Item 1A on page 29 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
38
Results of Continuing Operations
EME operates in one line of business, independent power production. The following section and table provide a summary of results of EME's operating projects and corporate expenses for the second quarters of 2011 and 2010 and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, together with discussions of the contributions by specific projects and of other significant factors affecting these results.
The following table shows the adjusted operating income (loss) (AOI) of EME's projects:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||
Midwest Generation plants |
$ | (52 | ) | $ | (39 | ) | $ | 3 | $ | 48 | |||
Homer City plant1 |
(10 | ) | | (26 | ) | 37 | |||||||
Renewable energy projects |
24 | 19 | 45 | 29 | |||||||||
Energy trading1 |
41 | 31 | 56 | 78 | |||||||||
Big 4 projects |
9 | 12 | 11 | 16 | |||||||||
Sunrise |
6 | 7 | (1 | ) | 3 | ||||||||
Doga |
26 | | 26 | 15 | |||||||||
March Point2 |
| | | 17 | |||||||||
Westside projects |
(1 | ) | | (1 | ) | 1 | |||||||
Other projects |
5 | 3 | 9 | 6 | |||||||||
Other operating income (expense) |
1 | (1 | ) | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
|
49 | 32 | 123 | 251 | |||||||||
Corporate administrative and general |
(32 | ) | (34 | ) | (66 | ) | (70 | ) | |||||
Corporate depreciation and amortization |
(6 | ) | (4 | ) | (12 | ) | (8 | ) | |||||
AOI3 |
$ | 11 | $ | (6 | ) | $ | 45 | $ | 173 | ||||
39
The following table reconciles AOI to operating income (loss) as reflected on EME's consolidated statements of operations:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
AOI |
$ | 11 | $ | (6 | ) | $ | 45 | $ | 173 | |||||
Less: |
||||||||||||||
Equity in income of unconsolidated affiliates |
17 | 20 | 12 | 37 | ||||||||||
Dividend income from projects |
27 | 1 | 28 | 17 | ||||||||||
Production tax credits |
19 | 19 | 37 | 33 | ||||||||||
Other income, net |
2 | | 5 | 2 | ||||||||||
Operating Income (Loss) |
$ | (54 | ) | $ | (46 | ) | $ | (37 | ) | $ | 84 | |||
Adjusted Operating Income from Consolidated Operations
The following table presents additional data for the Midwest Generation plants:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Operating Revenues |
$ | 280 | $ | 281 | $ | 631 | $ | 660 | |||||||
Operating Expenses |
|||||||||||||||
Fuel1 |
107 | 98 | 233 | 239 | |||||||||||
Plant operations |
164 | 167 | 282 | 265 | |||||||||||
Plant operating leases |
18 | 18 | 37 | 37 | |||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
29 | 28 | 58 | 56 | |||||||||||
Asset retirements |
9 | 2 | 9 | 3 | |||||||||||
Administrative and general |
5 | 7 | 11 | 12 | |||||||||||
Total operating expenses |
332 | 320 | 630 | 612 | |||||||||||
Operating Income (Loss) |
(52 | ) | (39 | ) | 1 | 48 | |||||||||
Other Income |
| | 2 | | |||||||||||
AOI |
$ | (52 | ) | $ | (39 | ) | $ | 3 | $ | 48 | |||||
Statistics2 |
|||||||||||||||
Generation (in GWh) |
5,560 | 5,430 | 13,030 | 13,642 | |||||||||||
Aggregate plant performance |
|||||||||||||||
Equivalent availability |
63.7% | 59.8% | 75.3% | 72.7% | |||||||||||
Capacity factor |
49.3% | 45.5% | 58.1% | 57.5% | |||||||||||
Load factor |
77.4% | 76.2% | 77.2% | 79.1% | |||||||||||
Forced outage rate |
5.0% | 10.4% | 5.1% | 8.2% | |||||||||||
Average realized price/MWh |
$ | 37.59 | $ | 41.50 | $ | 37.05 | $ | 40.31 | |||||||
Capacity revenues only (in millions) |
$ | 68 | $ | 58 | $ | 145 | $ | 105 | |||||||
Average realized fuel costs/MWh |
$ | 18.88 | $ | 17.55 | $ | 17.65 | $ | 16.99 | |||||||
40
AOI from the Midwest Generation plants decreased $13 million for the second quarter ended June 30, 2011, compared to the corresponding period of 2010. The second quarter decrease in AOI was attributable to lower energy revenues, higher fuel costs and higher operating expenses, partially offset by higher capacity revenues. The decline in energy revenues was due to lower average realized energy prices, partially offset by higher generation. The increase in fuel costs was due to higher generation and higher coal costs. The increase in operating expenses was due to higher maintenance and overhauls, including the retirement of equipment that was replaced as part of overhauls.
AOI from the Midwest Generation plants decreased $45 million for six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to the corresponding period of 2010. The 2011 decrease in AOI was attributable to lower energy revenues and higher plant operations costs, partially offset by higher capacity revenues. The decline in energy revenues was due to lower average realized energy prices and lower generation due to the permanent shutdown of Will County Units 1 and 2 at the end of 2010 in accordance with the CPS.
Included in operating revenues were unrealized gains (losses) from hedge activities of $2 million and $(3) million for the second quarters of 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $2 million and $4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Unrealized gains (losses) in 2011 and 2010 were attributable to both economic hedge contracts that are accounted for at fair value with offsetting changes recorded on the consolidated statements of operations and the ineffective portion of forward and futures contracts which are derivatives that qualify as cash flow hedges. The ineffective portion of hedge contracts at the Midwest Generation plants was attributable to changes in the difference between energy prices at the Northern Illinois Hub (the settlement point under forward contracts) and the energy prices at the Midwest Generation plants' busbars (the delivery point where power generated by the Midwest Generation plants is delivered into the transmission system).
Included in fuel costs were unrealized losses of $1 million and $2 million during the second quarters of 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $2 million and $7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Unrealized losses were due to oil futures contracts that were accounted for as economic hedges. These contracts were entered into in 2010 and 2009 to hedge variable fuel oil components of rail transportation costs.
41
The following table presents additional data for the Homer City plant:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
Operating Revenues1 |
$ | 136 | $ | 129 | $ | 251 | $ | 304 | ||||||
Operating Expenses |
||||||||||||||
Fuel2 |
63 | 57 | 115 | 127 | ||||||||||
Plant operations |
50 | 38 | 97 | 75 | ||||||||||
Plant operating leases |
26 | 27 | 51 | 52 | ||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
5 | 4 | 10 | 9 | ||||||||||
Asset retirements |
| 1 | | 1 | ||||||||||
Administrative and general |
2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||
Total operating expenses |
146 | 129 | 277 | 267 | ||||||||||
Operating Income (Loss) |
(10 | ) | | (26 | ) | 37 | ||||||||
AOI |
$ | (10 | ) | $ | | $ | (26 | ) | $ | 37 | ||||
Statistics3 |
||||||||||||||
Generation (in GWh) |
2,226 | 2,289 | 4,169 | 5,243 | ||||||||||
Equivalent availability |
66.6% | 64.5% | 63.0% | 72.3% | ||||||||||
Capacity factor |
54.1% | 55.5% | 50.9% | 63.9% | ||||||||||
Load factor |
81.2% | 86.0% | 80.9% | 88.4% | ||||||||||
Forced outage rate |
15.3% | 14.1% | 21.3% | 12.1% | ||||||||||
Average realized energy price/MWh |
$ | 48.98 | $ | 48.78 | $ | 47.21 | $ | 49.57 | ||||||
Capacity revenues only (in millions) |
$ | 24 | $ | 29 | $ | 48 | $ | 58 | ||||||
Average fuel costs/MWh |
$ | 28.22 | $ | 25.08 | $ | 27.63 | $ | 24.23 | ||||||
AOI from the Homer City plant decreased $10 million for the second quarter ended June 30, 2011, compared to the corresponding period of 2010. The second quarter decrease in AOI was attributable to higher plant maintenance costs from outages at Units 1 and 2 and higher coal costs, partially offset by unrealized gains in 2011 compared to unrealized losses in 2010 related to hedge contracts.
AOI from the Homer City plant decreased $63 million for six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to the corresponding period of 2010. The 2011 decrease in AOI was attributable to lower energy revenues driven by lower generation and energy prices, and higher plant maintenance costs from outages at Units 1 and 2, partially offset by unrealized gains in 2011 compared to unrealized losses in
42
2010 related to hedge contracts and lower fuel costs. The decline in fuel costs was due to lower generation, partially offset by higher coal costs.
Included in operating revenues were unrealized gains (losses) from hedge activities of $2 million and $(12) million for the second quarters of 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $5 million and $(14) million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Unrealized gains in 2011 were attributable to both economic hedge contracts that are accounted for at fair value with offsetting changes recorded on the statements of operations and the ineffective portion of forward and futures contracts which are derivatives that qualify as cash flow hedges. Unrealized losses in 2010 were attributable to the ineffective portion of forward and futures contracts. The ineffective portion of hedge contracts at Homer City was attributable to changes in the difference between energy prices at PJM West Hub (the settlement point under forward contracts) and the energy prices at the Homer City busbar (the delivery point where power generated by the Homer City plant is delivered into the transmission system).
Reconciliation of Non-GAAP DisclosuresCoal Plants and Statistical Definitions
The average realized energy price reflects the average price at which energy is sold into the market including the effects of hedges, real-time and day-ahead sales and PJM fees and ancillary services. It is determined by dividing (i) operating revenues less unrealized gains (losses) and other non-energy related revenues by (ii) generation as shown in the table below. Revenues related to capacity sales are excluded from the calculation of average realized energy price.
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Midwest Generation Plants (in millions) |
||||||||||||||
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Operating revenues |
$ | 280 | $ | 281 | $ | 631 | $ | 660 | ||||||
Less: |
||||||||||||||
Unrealized (gains) losses |
(2 | ) | 3 | (2 | ) | (4 | ) | |||||||
Capacity and other revenues |
(69 | ) | (58 | ) | (146 | ) | (106 | ) | ||||||
Realized revenues |
$ | 209 | $ | 226 | $ | 483 | $ | 550 | ||||||
Generation (in GWh) |
5,560 | 5,430 | 13,030 | 13,642 | ||||||||||
Average realized energy price/MWh |
$ |
37.59 |
$ |
41.50 |
$ |
37.05 |
$ |
40.31 |
||||||
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Homer City Plant (in millions) |
||||||||||||||
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Operating revenues |
$ | 136 | $ | 129 | $ | 251 | $ | 304 | ||||||
Less: |
||||||||||||||
Unrealized (gains) losses |
(2 | ) | 12 | (5 | ) | 14 | ||||||||
Capacity and other revenues |
(24 | ) | (29 | ) | (49 | ) | (58 | ) | ||||||
Realized revenues |
$ | 110 | $ | 112 | $ | 197 | $ | 260 | ||||||
Generation (in GWh) |
2,226 | 2,289 | 4,169 | 5,243 | ||||||||||
Average realized energy price/MWh |
$ |
48.98 |
$ |
48.78 |
$ |
47.21 |
$ |
49.57 |
||||||
43
The average realized energy price is presented as an aid in understanding the operating results of the coal plants. Average realized energy price is a non-GAAP performance measure since such statistical measure excludes unrealized gains or losses recorded as operating revenues. Management believes that the average realized energy price is meaningful for investors as this information reflects the impact of hedge contracts at the time of actual generation in period-over-period comparisons or as compared to real-time market prices. A reconciliation of the operating revenues of the coal plants presented in the preceding table and renewable energy projects presented in "Renewable Energy Projects" to consolidated operating revenues is set forth below:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
Operating revenues |
||||||||||||||
Midwest Generation plants |
$ | 280 | $ | 281 | $ | 631 | $ | 660 | ||||||
Homer City plant |
136 | 129 | 251 | 304 | ||||||||||
Renewable energy projects |
59 | 34 | 111 | 64 | ||||||||||
Other revenues |
61 | 49 | 93 | 116 | ||||||||||
Consolidated operating revenues as reported |
$ | 536 | $ | 493 | $ | 1,086 | $ | 1,144 | ||||||
The average realized fuel costs reflect the average cost per MWh at which fuel is consumed for generation sold into the market, including emission allowance costs and the effects of hedges. It is determined by dividing (i) fuel costs adjusted for unrealized gains (losses) by (ii) generation as shown in the table below:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Midwest Generation Plants (in millions) |
||||||||||||||
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Fuel costs |
$ | 107 | $ | 98 | $ | 233 | $ | 239 | ||||||
Less: |
||||||||||||||
Unrealized losses |
(1 | ) | (2 | ) | (2 | ) | (7 | ) | ||||||
Realized fuel costs |
$ | 106 | $ | 96 | $ | 231 | $ | 232 | ||||||
Generation (in GWh) |
5,560 | 5,430 | 13,030 | 13,642 | ||||||||||
Average realized fuel costs/MWh |
$ |
18.88 |
$ |
17.55 |
$ |
17.65 |
$ |
16.99 |
||||||
The average realized fuel costs are presented as an aid in understanding the operating results of the Midwest Generation plants. Average realized fuel costs are a non-GAAP performance measure since such statistical measure excludes unrealized gains or losses recorded as fuel costs. Management believes that average realized fuel costs are meaningful for investors as this information reflects the impact of
44
hedge contracts at the time of actual generation in period-over-period comparisons. A reconciliation of the fuel costs of the coal plants to consolidated fuel costs is set forth below:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
Fuel costs |
||||||||||||||
Midwest Generation plants |
$ | 107 | $ | 98 | $ | 233 | $ | 239 | ||||||
Homer City plant |
63 | 57 | 115 | 127 | ||||||||||
Other |
4 | 6 | 8 | 8 | ||||||||||
Consolidated fuel costs as reported |
$ | 174 | $ | 161 | $ | 356 | $ | 374 | ||||||
Due to fluctuations in electric demand resulting from warm weather during the summer months and cold weather during the winter months, electric revenues from the coal plants normally vary substantially on a seasonal basis. In addition, maintenance outages generally are scheduled during periods of lower projected electric demand (spring and fall), further reducing generation and increasing major maintenance costs which are recorded as an expense when incurred. Accordingly, income from the coal plants is seasonal and has significant variability from quarter to quarter. Seasonal fluctuations may also be affected by changes in market prices. For further discussion regarding market prices, see "Market Risk ExposuresCommodity Price RiskEnergy Price Risk."
45
The following table presents additional data for EME's renewable energy projects:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||||||||
Operating Revenues |
$ | 59 | $ | 34 | $ | 111 | $ | 64 | |||||||
Production Tax Credits |
19 | 19 | 37 | 33 | |||||||||||
|
78 | 53 | 148 | 97 | |||||||||||
Operating Expenses |
|||||||||||||||
Plant operations |
18 | 12 | 36 | 24 | |||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
37 | 22 | 68 | 43 | |||||||||||
Administrative and general |
1 | | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||
Total operating expenses |
56 | 34 | 106 | 68 | |||||||||||
Equity in income (loss) from unconsolidated affiliates |
1 |
|
1 |
(1 |
) |
||||||||||
Other Income |
1 | | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||
AOI1 |
$ | 24 | $ | 19 | $ | 45 | $ | 29 | |||||||
Statistics2 |
|||||||||||||||
Generation (in GWh)3 |
1,555 | 992 | 2,940 | 1,835 | |||||||||||
Aggregate plant performance3 |
|||||||||||||||
Equivalent availability |
93.3% | 90.9% | 93.7% | 90.8% | |||||||||||
Capacity factor |
41.0% | 38.5% | 39.5% | 35.8% | |||||||||||
AOI from renewable energy projects increased $5 million and $16 million in the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively, compared to the corresponding periods of 2010. The 2011 increases were primarily due to projects that achieved commercial operation in late 2010 and 2011 and increased generation at other projects due to higher availability and favorable wind conditions.
EME seeks to generate profit by utilizing its subsidiary, EMMT, to engage in trading activities primarily in those markets in which it is active as a result of its management of the merchant power plants of Midwest Generation and Homer City. EMMT trades power, fuel, coal, and transmission congestion
46
primarily in the eastern U.S. power grid using products available over the counter, through exchanges, and from independent system operators.
AOI from energy trading activities increased $10 million and decreased $22 million for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to the corresponding periods of 2010. The second quarter and year-to-date variances were attributable to fluctuations in revenues from congestion and power trading, compared to the same prior-year periods.
Adjusted Operating Income from Unconsolidated Affiliates
Doga. EME received a distribution from the Doga project in the second quarter of 2011 and in the first quarter of 2010. AOI is recognized when cash is distributed from the project as the Doga project is accounted for on the cost method.
March Point. During the first quarter of 2010, AOI from the March Point project was $17 million due to an equity distribution received from the project. EME subsequently sold its ownership interest in the March Point project to its partner in February 2010.
Kern River. Kern River Cogeneration Company has entered into an extension of its power purchase agreement with Southern California Edison Company, which was set to expire in June 2011. EME expects that this arrangement will eventually be replaced by a new power purchase agreement, but cannot predict whether a new agreement will be reached on acceptable terms or at all.
Seasonality. EME's third quarter equity in income from its unconsolidated energy projects is normally higher than equity in income related to other quarters of the year due to seasonal fluctuations and higher energy contract prices during the summer months.
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
Interest income |
$ | | $ | 1 | $ | 1 | $ | 2 | ||||||
Interest expense, net of capitalized interest |
||||||||||||||
EME debt |
$ | (63 | ) | $ | (58 | ) | $ | (125 | ) | $ | (118 | ) | ||
Non-recourse debt |
(17 | ) | (8 | ) | (35 | ) | (16 | ) | ||||||
|
$ | (80 | ) | $ | (66 | ) | $ | (160 | ) | $ | (134 | ) | ||
EME's interest expense increased primarily due to higher debt balances for wind project financing and lower capitalized interest. Capitalized interest for renewable energy projects under construction was $6 million and $16 million for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively, compared to $12 million and $23 million for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively.
Income taxes for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 included production tax credits of $37 million and $33 million, respectively. EME's income taxes from continuing operations during the
47
second quarter of 2010 included a $20 million income tax benefit resulting from the California Franchise Tax Board's acceptance and application of the federal settlement of tax disputes finalized with the Internal Revenue Service in 2009 for tax years 1986 through 2002. For a discussion of the status of Edison International's income tax audits, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 7. Income Taxes."
For a discussion of new accounting guidance affecting EME, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 1. Summary of Significant Accounting PoliciesNew Accounting Guidance."
48
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
The following table summarizes available liquidity at June 30, 2011:
(in millions) |
Cash and Cash Equivalents |
Available Under Credit Facilities |
Total Available Liquidity |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EME as a holding company |
$ | 237 | $ | 448 | $ | 685 | |||||
EME subsidiaries without contractual dividend restrictions |
195 | | 195 | ||||||||
EME corporate cash and cash equivalents |
432 | 448 | 880 | ||||||||
EME subsidiaries with contractual dividend restrictions |
|||||||||||
Midwest Generation1 |
254 | 497 | 751 | ||||||||
Homer City |
61 | | 61 | ||||||||
Other EME subsidiaries |
86 | | 86 | ||||||||
Total |
$ | 833 | $ | 945 | $ | 1,778 | |||||
EME, as a holding company, does not directly operate any revenue-producing generation facilities. EME relies on cash distributions and tax payments from its projects to meet its obligations, including debt service obligations on long-term debt. The timing and amount of distributions from EME's subsidiaries may be restricted. For further details, see "Dividend Restrictions in Major Financings."
The following table summarizes the status of the EME and Midwest Generation credit facilities at June 30, 2011, which mature in June 2012:
(in millions) |
EME |
Midwest Generation |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Commitments |
$ | 564 | $ | 500 | |||
Outstanding borrowings |
| | |||||
Outstanding letters of credit |
(116 | ) | (3 | ) | |||
Amount available |
$ | 448 | $ | 497 | |||
EME and Midwest Generation may seek to extend or replace credit facilities or retire them by other means. The terms and conditions of any refinancing could be substantially different than those in the current credit facilities. Senior notes in the principal amount of $500 million, which bear interest at 7.50% per annum, are due in June 2013. EME may also from time to time seek to retire or purchase its outstanding debt through cash purchases and/or exchange offers, open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise, depending on prevailing market conditions, EME's liquidity requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors.
During the first half of 2011, Homer City Units 1 and 2 were off line due to a steam pipe rupture at Unit 1 and precautionary maintenance at Unit 2. While Unit 1 returned to service on April 5, 2011 and Unit 2 on May 25, 2011, the outages and the continuation of low power prices have impacted Homer City's liquidity. As a result, in order to have sufficient working capital available for operating expenses
49
and to pay the equity portion of Homer City's rent payment that was due April 1, 2011 to the owner-lessors, Homer City had to defer certain fuel deliveries, arrange for accelerated payments by EMMT for future energy deliveries under an intercompany arrangement in place between EMMT and Homer City, and draw $12 million from the $20 million equity rent reserve established under its sale-leaseback transaction documents. Homer City must restore the equity rent reserve account and continue to make equity rent payments in order to be entitled to make future distributions. Homer City anticipates that the equity rent reserve balance will be restored in the future. At June 30, 2011, the equity rent reserve balance remained at the drawn balance of $8 million, but Homer City had delivered energy sufficient to eliminate the accelerated payments by EMMT. Effective April 1, 2011, EMMT allocated to Homer City the benefit of an arrangement that allows EMMT to deliver power into the NYISO from Homer City. Accordingly, since April 1, 2011, these revenues have been recorded as part of Homer City's revenues in lieu of their prior classification as EMMT trading revenues. EMMT realized trading revenues of $28 million under this arrangement in 2010.
The actions described above also resulted in Homer City being in compliance with the covenant requirements of its sale-leaseback documents relating to the payment of equity rent at April 1, 2011. Under these documents, rent payments are comprised of two components, senior rent and equity rent. Senior rent is used exclusively for debt service to holders of senior secured bonds issued in connection with the sale-leaseback transaction, while equity rent is paid to the owner-lessors. In order to pay equity rent, among other requirements, Homer City is required to meet historical and projected senior rent service coverage ratios of 1.7 to 1 (subject to reduction to 1.3 to 1 under certain circumstances). Homer City is not subject to any minimum historical and projected senior rent service coverage ratios except as conditions to distributions and equity rent payments. For additional discussion regarding Homer City's liquidity, see "Management OverviewCross-State Air Pollution Rule" and "Homer City Capital Needs."
Bonus Depreciation Impact on EME
The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the 2010 Tax Relief Act extended 50% bonus depreciation for qualifying property through 2012 and created a new 100% bonus depreciation for qualifying property placed in service between September 9, 2010 and December 31, 2011. These provisions are expected to result in a consolidated Edison International net operating loss for federal income tax purposes for 2011, and delay tax-allocation payments to EME until tax benefits are fully utilized by Edison International on a consolidated basis, which may take several years. EME expects to receive tax-allocation payments in 2011 as a result of the carryback of Edison International consolidated net operating losses for 2010 and subsequently make tax-allocation payments in 2012 as a result of reallocation of tax obligations from the expected Edison International consolidated net operating tax loss during 2011.
50
At June 30, 2011, forecasted capital expenditures through 2013 by EME's subsidiaries for existing projects, corporate activities and turbine commitments were as follows:
(in millions) |
July through December 2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Midwest Generation Plants |
|||||||||||
Environmental1 |
$ | 49 | $ | 172 | $ | 317 | |||||
Plant capital |
11 | 21 | 28 | ||||||||
Homer City Plant |
|||||||||||
Environmental1 |
| | | ||||||||
Plant capital |
5 | 26 | 16 | ||||||||
Walnut Creek Project |
173 | 257 | 43 | ||||||||
Renewable Energy Projects |
|||||||||||
Capital and construction |
72 | | | ||||||||
Turbine commitments |
45 | 8 | | ||||||||
Other capital |
7 |
14 |
14 |
||||||||
Total |
$ | 362 | $ | 498 | $ | 418 | |||||
Environmental Capital Expenditures
Midwest Generation plants' environmental expenditures include $34 million for remaining expenditures in 2011 related to selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) equipment and $501 million for expenditures for the remainder of 2011 to 2013 to begin to retrofit initial units using dry scrubbing with sodium-based sorbents to comply with CPS requirements for SO2 emissions. EME believes Midwest Generation's current environmental remediation plan, including allocated allowances and capital expenditures, required to meet the CPS will also comply with the requirements of CSAPR and the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Midwest Generation could elect to shut down units instead of installing controls to be in compliance with the CPS and other requirements, and, therefore, decisions about any particular combination of retrofits and shutdowns it may ultimately employ to comply remain subject to conditions applicable at the time decisions are required or made. Accordingly, the environmental expenditures for Midwest Generation in the preceding table represent current projects only and are subject to change based upon a number of considerations. Actual expenditures could be higher or lower. Preconstruction engineering and initial construction work for a project may occur in 2011 in advance of a final decision to continue or complete the project. For additional discussion, see "Management's OverviewMidwest Generation Compliance Plans and Costs."
The capital investment plan set forth in the previous table does not include environmental capital expenditures that Homer City will be required to undertake to meet the requirements of CSAPR. The timing, selection of technology and ultimate capital costs remain uncertain. For a discussion of environmental regulations, see "Management's OverviewCross-State Air Pollution Rule," "Management's OverviewHomer City Capital Needs," and refer to "Environmental Matters and Regulations" in Item 1 on page 19 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
51
Plant capital expenditures in the preceding table relate to non-environmental projects such as upgrades to boiler and turbine controls, replacement of major boiler components, generator stator rewinds, and development of a coal-cleaning plant refuse site and a new ash disposal site.
Walnut Creek Project Expenditures
For information on the Walnut Creek project and the related asset purchase, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 5. Debt and Credit AgreementsProject FinancingsWalnut Creek."
In the second quarter of 2011, EME acquired and commenced construction on the 55 MW Pinnacle wind project. The Community Wind North wind project achieved commercial operation on May 28, 2011, and the Taloga wind project achieved commercial operation on July 13, 2011.
The capital investment plan set forth in the previous table does not include capital expenditures for future projects. At June 30, 2011, EME had a development pipeline of potential wind projects with projected installed capacity of approximately 3,900 MW. The development pipeline represents potential wind projects with respect to which EME either owns the project rights or has exclusive acquisition rights. The pace of additional growth in EME's renewable program will be subject to the availability of third-party equity capital. At June 30, 2011, EME had capitalized costs and turbine deposits totaling $53 million related to renewable energy development efforts. To the extent that the renewable energy projects are not successful, EME would record a charge to write down the carrying amount of these assets.
EME's Historical Consolidated Cash Flow
This section discusses EME's consolidated cash flows from operating, financing and investing activities.
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
|||||
Operating cash flow from continuing operations |
$ | (92 | ) | $ | 159 | ||
Operating cash flow from discontinued operations |
(3 | ) | 9 | ||||
Net cash provided by operating activities |
(95 | ) | 168 | ||||
Net cash provided by financing activities |
96 | 37 | |||||
Net cash used in investing activities |
(243 | ) | (294 | ) | |||
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
$ | (242 | ) | $ | (89 | ) | |
Consolidated Cash Flows from Operating Activities
The decrease in the first six months of 2011 as compared to the first six months of 2010 in cash provided by operating activities from continuing operations was primarily attributable to lower net income, $92 million of U.S. Treasury grants received in 2010, and changes in other current liabilities.
52
Consolidated Cash Flows from Financing Activities
The increase in the first six months of 2011 as compared to the first six months of 2010 in cash provided by financing activities from continuing operations was primarily attributable to additional wind project borrowings.
Consolidated Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Cash used in investing activities for the first six months of 2011 and 2010 primarily consisted of capital expenditures. In addition, cash used in investing activities for the first six months of 2011 included wind and gas project investments and other capital expenditures.
Credit ratings for EME, Midwest Generation and EMMT as of June 30, 2011 were as follows:
|
Moody's Rating |
S&P Rating |
Fitch Rating |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EME1 |
Caa1 | B- | CCC | |||
Midwest Generation2 |
Ba3 | B+ | BB- | |||
EMMT |
Not Rated | B- | Not Rated | |||
On June 29, 2011, Moody's lowered the credit ratings of EME to Caa1 from B3 and Midwest Generation to Ba3 from Ba2. On June 30, 2011, Fitch lowered the credit ratings of EME to CCC from B- and Midwest Generation to BB- from BB. All the above ratings are on negative outlook. EME cannot provide assurance that its current credit ratings or the credit ratings of its subsidiaries will remain in effect for any given period of time or that one or more of these ratings will not be lowered. EME notes that these credit ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold its securities and may be revised at any time by a rating agency.
EME does not have any "rating triggers" contained in subsidiary financings that would result in a requirement to make equity contributions or provide additional financial support to its subsidiaries, including EMMT. However, coal contracts at Midwest Generation include provisions that provide the right to request additional collateral to support payment obligations for delivered coal and may vary based on Midwest Generation's credit ratings. Furthermore, EMMT also has hedge contracts that do not require margin, but contain the right of each party to request additional credit support in the form of adequate assurance of performance in the case of an adverse development affecting the other party.
For a discussion of the effect of EMMT's credit rating on EME's ability to sell forward the output of the Homer City plant through EMMT, refer to "Credit Rating of EMMT" in Item 7 on page 60 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
53
Margin, Collateral Deposits and Other Credit Support for Energy Contracts
To reduce its exposure to market risk, EME hedges a portion of its electricity price exposure through EMMT. In connection with entering into contracts, EMMT may be required to support its risk of nonperformance through parent guarantees, margining or other credit support. EME has entered into guarantees in support of EMMT's hedging and trading activities; however, EME has historically also provided collateral in the form of cash and letters of credit for the benefit of counterparties related to the net of accounts payable, accounts receivable, unrealized losses, and unrealized gains in connection with these hedging and trading activities. For further details, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 6. Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities."
Future cash collateral requirements may be higher than the margin and collateral requirements at June 30, 2011, if wholesale energy prices change or if EMMT enters into additional transactions. Certain EMMT hedge contracts do not require margin, but contain provisions that require EME or Midwest Generation to comply with the terms and conditions of their credit facilities. The credit facilities contain financial covenants which are described further in "EME's Liquidity as a Holding Company" and "Dividend Restrictions in Major Financings."
EME's Liquidity as a Holding Company
EME's Credit Facility Financial Ratios
EME's credit facility contains financial covenants which require EME to maintain a minimum interest coverage ratio and a maximum corporate-debt-to-capital ratio as such terms are defined in the credit facility. The following details of EME's interest coverage ratio and a maximum corporate-debt-to-capital ratio are provided as an aid to understanding the components of the computations as defined in the credit facility. This information is not intended to measure the financial performance of EME and, accordingly, should not be used in lieu of the financial information set forth in EME's consolidated financial statements. At June 30, 2011, EME and its subsidiaries were in compliance with the terms of their debt covenants.
54
The following table sets forth the major components of the interest coverage ratio:
|
12 Months Ended | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
June 30, 2011 |
December 31, 2010 |
|||||||
Funds Flow Available for Interest |
|||||||||
Distributions |
|||||||||
Midwest Generation |
$ | 155 | $ | 125 | |||||
Homer City |
52 | 74 | |||||||
Big 4 projects |
65 | 77 | |||||||
U.S. Treasury grants |
| 92 | |||||||
Renewable energy projects1 |
295 | 223 | |||||||
Other projects |
45 | 63 | |||||||
Tax payments received from subsidiaries |
139 | 136 | |||||||
Realized trading income |
101 | 120 | |||||||
Tax-allocation receipts (payments)2 |
15 | 90 | |||||||
Operating expenses |
(131 | ) | (139 | ) | |||||
Other items, net3 |
(15 | ) | (56 | ) | |||||
|
$ | 721 | $ | 805 | |||||
Net Interest Expense |
|||||||||
EME corporate debt |
$ | 234 | $ | 223 | |||||
Addback: Capitalized interest |
49 | 54 | |||||||
Powerton-Joliet intercompany notes |
111 | 112 | |||||||
|
$ | 394 | $ | 389 | |||||
Ratio |
1.83 | 2.07 | |||||||
Covenant threshold (not less than) |
1.20 | 1.20 | |||||||
The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the 2010 Tax Relief Act provisions are expected to impact the timing of tax-allocation payments. For additional discussion of the impact, see "Available LiquidityBonus Depreciation Impact on EME."
55
The following table sets forth the major components of the corporate-debt-to-capital ratio:
(in millions) |
June 30, 2011 |
December 31, 2010 |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Corporate Debt |
|||||||||
Indebtedness for money borrowed |
$ | 3,700 | $ | 3,700 | |||||
Powerton-Joliet termination value |
882 | 933 | |||||||
Letters of credit |
119 | 83 | |||||||
|
$ | 4,701 | $ | 4,716 | |||||
Corporate Capital |
|||||||||
Common shareholder's equity |
$ | 2,737 | $ | 2,842 | |||||
Less: |
|||||||||
Non-cash cumulative changes in accounting |
(9 | ) | (9 | ) | |||||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
55 | 31 | |||||||
Adjustments: |
|||||||||
After-tax losses incurred on termination of Collins lease |
587 | 587 | |||||||
Dividend to Mission Energy Holding Company for repayment of 13.5% notes |
899 | 899 | |||||||
|
4,269 | 4,350 | |||||||
Corporate debt |
4,701 | 4,716 | |||||||
|
$ | 8,970 | $ | 9,066 | |||||
Corporate-debt-to-capital ratio |
0.52 | 0.52 | |||||||
Covenant threshold (not more than) |
0.75 | 0.75 | |||||||
Dividend Restrictions in Major Financings
Key Ratios of EME's Principal Subsidiaries Affecting Dividends
Set forth below are key ratios of EME's principal subsidiaries required by financing arrangements at June 30, 2011 or for the 12 months ended June 30, 2011:
Subsidiary |
Financial Ratio |
Covenant |
Actual |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Midwest Generation (Midwest |
Debt to Capitalization Ratio |
Less than or equal to 0.60 to 1 |
0.14 to 1 | |||||
Homer City (Homer City plant) |
Senior Rent Service Coverage Ratio |
Greater than 1.7 to 1 |
1.75 to 1 |
|||||
To make distributions, including repayment of certain intercompany loans, Homer City must meet the senior rent service coverage ratio. In addition, Homer City is restricted from making distributions until the Homer City equity reserve account is replenished. For additional information, see "Available LiquidityHomer City Outage."
For a more detailed description of the covenants binding EME's principal subsidiaries that may restrict the ability of those entities to make distributions to EME directly or indirectly through the other holding companies owned by EME, refer to "Dividend Restrictions in Major Financings" in Item 7 on page 64 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
56
EME's Senior Notes and Guaranty of Powerton-Joliet Leases
EME is restricted under applicable agreements from selling or disposing of assets, which includes distributions, if the aggregate net book value of all such sales and dispositions during the most recent 12-month period would exceed 10% of consolidated net tangible assets as defined in such agreements computed as of the end of the most recent fiscal quarter preceding the sale or disposition in question. At June 30, 2011, the maximum permissible sale or disposition of EME assets is calculated as follows:
(in millions) |
|
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consolidated Net Tangible Assets |
||||||
Total consolidated assets |
$ | 9,493 | ||||
Less: |
||||||
Consolidated current liabilities |
536 | |||||
Intangible assets |
82 | |||||
|
$ | 8,875 | ||||
10% Threshold |
$ | 888 | ||||
This limitation does not apply if the proceeds are invested in assets in similar or related lines of business of EME. Furthermore, EME may sell or otherwise dispose of assets in excess of such 10% limitation if the proceeds from such sales or dispositions, which are not reinvested as provided above, are retained as cash or cash equivalents or are used to repay debt.
As a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Edison International, EME is subject to determinations made by its directors, each of whom is appointed by Edison International, to act in the interests of Edison International and its shareholders, which may result in EME making distributions of cash or assets, subject to the limitations described above and applicable law, at any time or from time to time, which may affect EME's assets held or under development.
Contractual Obligations and Contingencies
For a discussion of fuel supply contracts, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 9. Commitments and ContingenciesCommitmentsFuel Supply Contracts."
For a discussion of capital expenditures, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 9. Commitments and ContingenciesCommitmentsCapital Expenditures."
Midwest Generation New Source Review and Other Litigation
For a discussion of the Midwest Generation New Source Review lawsuit, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 9. Commitments and ContingenciesContingenciesMidwest Generation New Source Review and Other Litigation."
57
Homer City New Source Review and Other Litigation
For a discussion of the Homer City New Source Review lawsuit, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 9. Commitments and ContingenciesContingenciesHomer City New Source Review and Other Litigation."
Off-Balance Sheet Transactions
For a discussion of EME's off-balance sheet transactions, refer to "Off-Balance Sheet Transactions" in Item 7 on page 68 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. There have been no significant developments with respect to EME's off-balance sheet transactions that affect disclosures presented in EME's annual report.
Environmental Matters and Regulations
For a discussion of EME's environmental matters, refer to "Environmental Matters and Regulations" in Item 1 on page 19 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. There have been no significant developments with respect to environmental matters specifically affecting EME since the filing of EME's annual report, except as set forth in "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 10. Environmental Developments."
58
For a detailed discussion of EME's market risk exposures, including commodity price risk, credit risk and interest rate risk, refer to "Market Risk Exposures" in Item 7 on page 71 of EME's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
EME classifies unrealized gains and losses from derivative instruments (other than the effective portion of derivatives that qualify for hedge accounting) as part of operating revenues or fuel costs. The following table summarizes unrealized gains (losses) from non-trading activities:
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(in millions) |
2011 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010 |
||||||||||
Midwest Generation plants |
||||||||||||||
Non-qualifying hedges |
$ | 2 | $ | (4 | ) | $ | 1 | $ | (6 | ) | ||||
Ineffective portion of cash flow hedges |
(1 | ) | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | 3 | |||||||
Homer City plant |
||||||||||||||
Non-qualifying hedges |
2 | | 3 | | ||||||||||
Ineffective portion of cash flow hedges |
| (12 | ) | 2 | (14 | ) | ||||||||
Total unrealized gains (losses) |
$ | 3 | $ | (17 | ) | $ | 5 | $ | (17 | ) | ||||
At June 30, 2011, cumulative unrealized gains of $8 million were recognized from non-qualifying hedge contracts or the ineffective portion of cash flow hedges related to subsequent periods ($3 million for the remainder of 2011 and $5 million for 2012).
In determining the fair value of EME's derivative positions, EME uses third-party market pricing where available. For further explanation of the fair value hierarchy and a discussion of EME's derivative instruments, see "Edison Mission Energy and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsNote 4. Fair Value Measurements" and "Note 6. Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," respectively.