UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D. C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
X |
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES |
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006
OR
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES |
|
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from |
|
to |
|
|
|
Exact name of registrants as specified |
|
I.R.S. Employer |
|
Commission File |
|
in their charters, address of principal |
|
Identification |
|
Number |
|
executive offices, zip code and telephone number |
|
Number |
|
1-14465 |
|
IDACORP, Inc. |
|
82-0505802 |
|
1-3198 |
|
Idaho Power Company |
|
82-0130980 |
|
|
|
1221 W. Idaho Street |
|
|
|
|
|
Boise, ID 83702-5627 |
|
|
|
|
|
(208) 388-2200 |
|
|
|
|
|
State of Incorporation: Idaho |
|
|
|
|
|
Websites: |
www.idacorpinc.com |
|
|
|
|
|
www.idahopower.com |
|
|
|
|||||
None |
Former name, former
address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report.
Indicate by check mark
whether the registrants (1) have 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 registrants were required to
file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for
the past 90 days. Yes X No ___
Indicate by check mark whether the registrants are large accelerated filers, accelerated filers, or non-accelerated filers.
IDACORP, Inc.: |
||||||
|
Large accelerated filer |
X |
Accelerated filer |
|
Non-accelerated filer |
|
Idaho Power Company: |
||||||
|
Large accelerated filer |
|
Accelerated filer |
|
Non-accelerated filer |
X |
Indicate by check mark
whether the registrants are shell companies (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes ___ No X
Number of shares of
Common Stock outstanding as of June 30, 2006:
IDACORP, Inc.: |
42,805,106 |
Idaho Power Company: |
39,150,812, all held by IDACORP, Inc. |
This combined Form 10-Q
represents separate filings by IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company. Information contained herein relating to an
individual registrant is filed by that registrant on its own behalf. Idaho Power Company makes no representations
as to the information relating to IDACORP, Inc.'s other operations.
Idaho Power Company
meets the conditions set forth in General Instructions H(1)(a) and (b) of Form
10-Q and is therefore filing this Form with the reduced disclosure format.
COMMONLY USED TERMS |
|||
|
|
|
|
AFDC |
- |
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction |
|
Cal ISO |
- |
California Independent System Operator |
|
CalPX |
- |
California Power Exchange |
|
Energy Act |
- |
Energy Policy Act of 2005 |
|
EPS |
- |
Earnings per share |
|
ESA |
- |
Endangered Species Act |
|
FASB |
- |
Financial Accounting Standards Board |
|
FERC |
- |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
|
FIN |
- |
Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation |
|
Fitch |
- |
Fitch, Inc. |
|
FPA |
- |
Federal Power Act |
|
GAAP |
- |
Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the United States of America |
|
Ida-West |
- |
Ida-West Energy, a subsidiary of IDACORP, Inc. |
|
IDWR |
- |
Idaho Department of Water Resources |
|
IE |
- |
IDACORP Energy, a subsidiary of IDACORP, Inc. |
|
IFS |
- |
IDACORP Financial Services, Inc., a subsidiary of IDACORP, Inc. |
|
IPC |
- |
Idaho Power Company, a subsidiary of IDACORP, Inc. |
|
IPUC |
- |
Idaho Public Utilities Commission |
|
IRP |
- |
Integrated Resource Plan |
|
ITI |
- |
IDACORP Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of IDACORP, Inc. |
|
kW |
- |
Kilowatt |
|
maf |
- |
Million acre feet |
|
MD&A |
- |
Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of |
|
|
|
|
Operations |
Moody's |
- |
Moody's Investors Service |
|
MW |
- |
Megawatt |
|
MWh |
- |
Megawatt-hour |
|
NEPA |
- |
National Environmental Policy Act of 1996 |
|
OPUC |
- |
Oregon Public Utility Commission |
|
PCA |
- |
Power Cost Adjustment |
|
PM&E |
- |
Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement |
|
PURPA |
- |
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 |
|
RFP |
- |
Request for Proposal |
|
RTO |
- |
Regional Transmission Organization |
|
S&P |
- |
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services |
|
SFAS |
- |
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards |
|
SO2 |
- |
Sulfur Dioxide |
|
Valmy |
- |
North Valmy Steam Electric Generating Plant |
|
VIEs |
- |
Variable Interest Entities |
INDEX
Page |
||||
Part I. Financial Information: |
||||
|
Item 1. Financial Statements (unaudited) |
|
||
|
|
IDACORP, Inc.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets |
3-4 |
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows |
5 |
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income |
6 |
|
|
Idaho Power Company: |
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income |
7-8 |
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets |
9-10 |
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Capitalization |
11 |
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows |
12 |
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income |
13 |
|
|
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements |
14-29 |
|
|
|
Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm |
30-31 |
|
|
||||
|
Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial |
|||
|
|
Condition and Results of Operations |
32-54 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk |
54-55 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Item 4. Controls and Procedures |
55 |
||
|
|
|
||
Part II. Other Information: |
||||
|
||||
|
Item 1. Legal Proceedings |
56 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Item 1A. Risk Factors |
56 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds |
56 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
57 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Item 6. Exhibits |
57-63 |
||
|
||||
Signatures |
64 |
|||
|
|
|||
*Exhibit Index |
65 |
|||
|
|
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This Form 10-Q contains
"forward-looking statements" intended to qualify for the safe harbor
from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995. Forward-looking statements should
be read with the cautionary statements and important factors included in this
Form 10-Q at Part I, Item 2,
"Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations - Forward-Looking Information." Forward-looking statements are all statements
other than statements of historical fact, including without limitation those
that are identified by the use of the words "anticipates," "believes,"
"estimates," "expects," "intends,"
"plans," "predicts," "projects," "may
result," "may continue" and similar expressions.
PART I - FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements
IDACORP,
Inc.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
(unaudited)
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars except for |
|||||||
|
per share amounts) |
|||||||
Operating Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Electric utility: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
General business |
$ |
159,210 |
|
$ |
150,583 |
|
|
|
Off-system sales |
|
75,598 |
|
|
38,872 |
|
|
|
Other revenues |
|
6,040 |
|
|
10,253 |
|
|
|
|
Total electric utility revenues |
|
240,848 |
|
|
199,708 |
|
Other |
|
1,787 |
|
|
1,582 |
||
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
242,635 |
|
|
201,290 |
|
Operating Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Electric utility: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Purchased power |
|
74,808 |
|
|
36,929 |
|
|
|
Fuel expense |
|
21,954 |
|
|
24,369 |
|
|
|
Power cost adjustment |
|
4,600 |
|
|
12,415 |
|
|
|
Other operations and maintenance |
|
69,840 |
|
|
65,717 |
|
|
|
Gain on sale of emission allowance |
|
(8,126) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
24,633 |
|
|
25,193 |
|
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes |
|
6,329 |
|
|
5,302 |
|
|
|
|
Total electric utility expenses |
|
194,038 |
|
|
169,925 |
|
Other |
|
3,046 |
|
|
3,229 |
||
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
197,084 |
|
|
173,154 |
Operating Income (Loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Electric utility |
|
46,810 |
|
|
29,783 |
||
|
Other |
|
(1,259) |
|
|
(1,647) |
||
|
|
Total operating income |
|
45,551 |
|
|
28,136 |
|
Other Income |
|
5,080 |
|
|
3,216 |
|||
Losses of Unconsolidated Equity-method Investments |
|
(2,208) |
|
|
(951) |
|||
Other Expenses |
|
2,655 |
|
|
1,193 |
|||
Interest Expense: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Interest on long-term debt |
|
14,200 |
|
|
14,292 |
||
|
Other interest expense |
|
1,175 |
|
|
810 |
||
|
|
Total interest expense |
|
15,375 |
|
|
15,102 |
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
30,393 |
|
|
14,106 |
|||
Income Tax Expense |
|
7,720 |
|
|
1,513 |
|||
Income from Continuing Operations |
|
22,673 |
|
|
12,593 |
|||
Losses from Discontinued Operations (net of tax) |
|
(2,817) |
|
|
(3,142) |
|||
Net Income |
$ |
19,856 |
|
$ |
9,451 |
|||
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding - Basic (000's) |
|
42,557 |
|
|
42,230 |
|||
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (basic): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income from Continuing Operations |
$ |
0.53 |
|
$ |
0.30 |
||
|
Losses from Discontinued Operations |
$ |
(0.06) |
|
$ |
(0.08) |
||
|
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (basic) |
$ |
0.47 |
|
$ |
0.22 |
||
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding - Diluted (000's) |
42,702 |
|
|
42,292 |
||||
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (diluted): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income from Continuing Operations |
$ |
0.53 |
|
$ |
0.30 |
||
|
Losses from Discontinued Operations |
$ |
(0.06) |
|
$ |
(0.08) |
||
|
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (diluted) |
$ |
0.47 |
|
$ |
0.22 |
||
Dividends Paid Per Share of Common Stock |
$ |
0.30 |
|
$ |
0.30 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IDACORP, Inc.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
(unaudited)
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars except for |
|||||||
|
per share amounts) |
|||||||
Operating Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Electric utility: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
General business |
$ |
321,393 |
|
$ |
296,953 |
|
|
|
Off-system sales |
|
179,839 |
|
|
71,085 |
|
|
|
Other revenues |
|
6,890 |
|
|
22,538 |
|
|
|
|
Total electric utility revenues |
|
508,122 |
|
|
390,576 |
|
Other |
|
2,853 |
|
|
2,240 |
||
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
510,975 |
|
|
392,816 |
|
Operating Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Electric utility: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Purchased power |
|
130,733 |
|
|
81,007 |
|
|
|
Fuel expense |
|
48,923 |
|
|
49,465 |
|
|
|
Power cost adjustment |
|
48,067 |
|
|
7,998 |
|
|
|
Other operations and maintenance |
|
131,513 |
|
|
120,816 |
|
|
|
Gain on sale of emission allowance |
|
(8,235) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
49,182 |
|
|
50,112 |
|
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes |
|
11,900 |
|
|
10,529 |
|
|
|
|
Total electric utility operations |
|
412,083 |
|
|
319,927 |
|
Other |
|
6,863 |
|
|
6,255 |
||
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
418,946 |
|
|
326,182 |
Operating Income (Loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Electric utility |
|
96,039 |
|
|
70,649 |
||
|
Other |
|
(4,010) |
|
|
(4,015) |
||
|
|
Total operating income |
|
92,029 |
|
|
66,634 |
|
Other Income |
|
9,749 |
|
|
7,368 |
|||
Losses of Unconsolidated Equity-method Investments |
|
(2,259) |
|
|
(288) |
|||
Other Expenses |
|
4,076 |
|
|
2,296 |
|||
Interest Expense: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Interest on long-term debt |
|
28,284 |
|
|
28,366 |
||
|
Other interest expense |
|
2,204 |
|
|
1,282 |
||
|
|
Total interest expenses |
|
30,488 |
|
|
29,648 |
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
64,955 |
|
|
41,770 |
|||
Income Tax Expense |
|
15,327 |
|
|
3,535 |
|||
Income from Continuing Operations |
|
49,628 |
|
|
38,235 |
|||
Losses from Discontinued Operations (net of tax) |
|
(4,296) |
|
|
(5,718) |
|||
Net Income |
$ |
45,332 |
|
$ |
32,517 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding - Basic (000's) |
|
42,515 |
|
|
42,220 |
|||
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (basic): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income from Continuing Operations |
$ |
1.17 |
|
$ |
0.91 |
||
|
Losses from Discontinued Operations |
$ |
(0.10) |
|
$ |
(0.14) |
||
|
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (basic) |
$ |
1.07 |
|
$ |
0.77 |
||
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding - Diluted (000's) |
42,642 |
|
|
42,289 |
||||
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (diluted): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Income from Continuing Operations |
$ |
1.16 |
|
$ |
0.91 |
||
|
Losses from Discontinued Operations |
$ |
(0.10) |
|
$ |
(0.14) |
||
|
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock (diluted) |
$ |
1.06 |
|
$ |
0.77 |
||
Dividends Paid Per Share of Common Stock |
$ |
0.60 |
|
$ |
0.60 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IDACORP, Inc.
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(unaudited)
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||
Assets |
(thousands of dollars) |
||||||
|
|
|
|
||||
Current Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
53,871 |
|
$ |
52,356 |
|
|
Receivables: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer |
|
60,676 |
|
|
94,469 |
|
|
Allowance for uncollectible accounts |
|
(6,921) |
|
|
(33,078) |
|
|
Employee notes |
|
2,681 |
|
|
2,951 |
|
|
Other |
|
7,219 |
|
|
21,377 |
|
Energy marketing assets |
|
13,308 |
|
|
23,859 |
|
|
Accrued unbilled revenues |
|
37,291 |
|
|
38,905 |
|
|
Materials and supplies (at average cost) |
|
34,677 |
|
|
30,451 |
|
|
Fuel stock (at average cost) |
|
17,409 |
|
|
11,739 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
25,557 |
|
|
23,922 |
|
|
Prepayments |
|
14,026 |
|
|
17,876 |
|
|
Regulatory assets |
|
1,984 |
|
|
3,064 |
|
|
Other |
|
4,766 |
|
|
2,956 |
|
|
Assets held for sale |
|
5,085 |
|
|
6,673 |
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
271,629 |
|
|
297,520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Investments |
|
195,828 |
|
|
191,593 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Property, Plant and Equipment: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Utility plant in service |
|
3,532,237 |
|
|
3,477,067 |
|
|
Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
(1,401,453) |
|
|
(1,364,640) |
|
|
|
Utility plant in service - net |
|
2,130,784 |
|
|
2,112,427 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
189,141 |
|
|
149,814 |
|
|
Utility plant held for future use |
|
2,810 |
|
|
2,906 |
|
|
Other property, net of accumulated depreciation |
|
28,948 |
|
|
29,294 |
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment - net |
|
2,351,683 |
|
|
2,294,441 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Other Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
American Falls and Milner water rights |
|
31,585 |
|
|
31,585 |
|
|
Company-owned life insurance |
|
35,048 |
|
|
35,401 |
|
|
Energy marketing assets - long-term |
|
11,251 |
|
|
22,189 |
|
|
Regulatory assets |
|
376,537 |
|
|
415,177 |
|
|
Long-term receivables (net of allowance of $1,878) |
|
3,832 |
|
|
4,015 |
|
|
Employee notes - long-term |
|
2,563 |
|
|
2,862 |
|
|
Other |
|
42,714 |
|
|
43,377 |
|
|
Assets held for sale |
|
27,066 |
|
|
25,966 |
|
|
|
Total other assets |
|
530,596 |
|
|
580,572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Total Assets |
$ |
3,349,736 |
|
$ |
3,364,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IDACORP, Inc.
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(unaudited)
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
|||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity |
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
Current Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Current maturities of long-term debt |
$ |
15,949 |
|
$ |
16,307 |
||
|
Notes payable |
|
45,200 |
|
|
60,100 |
||
|
Accounts payable |
|
71,730 |
|
|
80,324 |
||
|
Energy marketing liabilities |
|
13,937 |
|
|
24,093 |
||
|
Taxes accrued |
|
86,971 |
|
|
72,652 |
||
|
Interest accrued |
|
14,770 |
|
|
14,616 |
||
|
Other |
|
32,385 |
|
|
19,577 |
||
|
Liabilities held for sale |
|
3,921 |
|
|
5,916 |
||
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
284,863 |
|
|
293,585 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Other Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
483,018 |
|
|
519,563 |
||
|
Energy marketing liabilities - long-term |
|
11,251 |
|
|
22,189 |
||
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
372,289 |
|
|
345,109 |
||
|
Other |
|
125,193 |
|
|
124,833 |
||
|
Liabilities held for sale |
|
7,648 |
|
|
10,051 |
||
|
|
Total other liabilities |
|
999,399 |
|
|
1,021,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Long-Term Debt |
|
1,016,133 |
|
|
1,023,545 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Shareholders' Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Common stock, no par value (shares authorized 120,000,000; |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
42,868,718 and 42,656,393 shares issued, respectively) |
|
599,059 |
|
|
598,706 |
|
|
Retained earnings |
|
457,078 |
|
|
437,284 |
||
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
(4,811) |
|
|
(3,425) |
||
|
Treasury stock (63,612 and 24,063 shares at cost, respectively) |
|
(1,985) |
|
|
(998) |
||
|
Unearned compensation |
|
- |
|
|
(6,316) |
||
|
|
Total shareholders' equity |
|
1,049,341 |
|
|
1,025,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total |
$ |
3,349,736 |
|
$ |
3,364,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IDACORP, Inc.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(unaudited)
|
|
Six Months Ended |
||||||
|
|
June 30, |
||||||
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
Operating Activities: |
|
|||||||
|
Net income |
$ |
45,332 |
|
$ |
32,517 |
||
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gains) losses from energy marketing activities |
|
(234) |
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
60,339 |
|
|
61,635 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits |
|
(35,056) |
|
|
(4,380) |
|
|
|
Changes in regulatory assets and liabilities |
|
61,143 |
|
|
4,826 |
|
|
|
Undistributed earnings of subsidiaries |
|
(4,607) |
|
|
(6,255) |
|
|
|
Provision for uncollectible accounts |
|
(133) |
|
|
(157) |
|
|
|
Gain on sales of assets |
|
(7,547) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
Other non-cash adjustments to net income |
|
(1,957) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
Change in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable and prepayments |
|
26,095 |
|
|
(4,102) |
|
|
|
Accounts payable and other accrued liabilities |
|
(10,470) |
|
|
(21,985) |
|
|
|
Taxes accrued |
|
14,317 |
|
|
6,161 |
|
|
|
Other current assets |
|
(8,416) |
|
|
(14,203) |
|
|
|
Other current liabilities |
|
10,003 |
|
|
9,229 |
|
|
Other assets |
|
(1,978) |
|
|
(2,500) |
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
(317) |
|
|
4,839 |
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
146,514 |
|
|
65,997 |
Investing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment |
|
(102,465) |
|
|
(90,434) |
||
|
Investments in affordable housing |
|
- |
|
|
(4,024) |
||
|
Sale of emission allowances |
|
10,865 |
|
|
- |
||
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates |
|
(11,520) |
|
|
- |
||
|
Purchase of available-for-sale securities |
|
(9,428) |
|
|
(77,774) |
||
|
Sale of available-for-sale securities |
|
10,607 |
|
|
110,638 |
||
|
Purchase of held-to-maturity securities |
|
(1,245) |
|
|
(947) |
||
|
Maturity of held-to-maturity securities |
|
981 |
|
|
1,553 |
||
|
Other assets |
|
857 |
|
|
(309) |
||
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
(101,348) |
|
|
(61,297) |
|
Financing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Issuance of long-term debt |
|
- |
|
|
4,992 |
||
|
Retirement of long-term debt |
|
(7,901) |
|
|
(9,497) |
||
|
Dividends on common stock |
|
(25,521) |
|
|
(25,326) |
||
|
Change in short-term borrowings |
|
(14,900) |
|
|
12,530 |
||
|
Issuance of common stock |
|
4,816 |
|
|
1,474 |
||
|
Other assets |
|
(8) |
|
|
(370) |
||
|
Other liabilities |
|
(137) |
|
|
- |
||
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
(43,651) |
|
|
(16,197) |
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
1,515 |
|
|
(11,497) |
|||
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
52,356 |
|
|
23,403 |
|||
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
$ |
53,871 |
|
$ |
11,906 |
|||
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information: |
||||||||
|
Cash paid during the period for: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Income taxes |
$ |
34,623 |
|
$ |
710 |
|
|
|
Interest (net of amount capitalized) |
$ |
29,317 |
|
$ |
28,351 |
|
|
Non-cash investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment |
$ |
9,481 |
|
$ |
4,562 |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IDACORP, Inc.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
(unaudited)
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Net Income |
$ |
19,856 |
|
$ |
9,451 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Unrealized holding gains (losses) arising during the period, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
net of tax of ($523) and ($315) |
|
(922) |
|
|
(619) |
|
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for gains included |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in net income, net of tax of ($512) and ($159) |
|
(798) |
|
|
(247) |
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains (losses) |
|
(1,720) |
|
|
(866) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Comprehensive Income |
$ |
18,136 |
|
$ |
8,585 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Net Income |
$ |
45,332 |
|
$ |
32,517 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Unrealized holding gains (losses) arising during the period, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
net of tax of ($65) and ($589) |
|
(248) |
|
|
(1,143) |
|
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for gains included |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in net income, net of tax of ($730) and ($393) |
|
(1,138) |
|
|
(611) |
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains (losses) |
|
(1,386) |
|
|
(1,754) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Comprehensive Income |
$ |
43,946 |
|
$ |
30,763 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
Idaho Power Company
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
(unaudited)
|
Three Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
Operating Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
General business |
$ |
159,210 |
|
$ |
150,583 |
||
|
Off-system sales |
|
75,598 |
|
|
38,872 |
||
|
Other revenues |
|
6,040 |
|
|
9,433 |
||
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
240,848 |
|
|
198,888 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Operating Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Operation: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Purchased power |
|
74,808 |
|
|
36,929 |
|
|
|
Fuel expense |
|
21,954 |
|
|
24,369 |
|
|
|
Power cost adjustment |
|
4,600 |
|
|
12,415 |
|
|
|
Other |
|
48,200 |
|
|
45,413 |
|
|
|
Gain on sale of emission allowance |
|
(8,126) |
|
|
- |
|
|
Maintenance |
|
21,640 |
|
|
19,519 |
||
|
Depreciation |
|
24,633 |
|
|
25,193 |
||
|
Taxes other than income taxes |
|
6,329 |
|
|
5,302 |
||
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
194,038 |
|
|
169,140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Income from Operations |
|
46,810 |
|
|
29,748 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Allowance for equity funds used during construction |
|
1,646 |
|
|
1,088 |
||
|
Earnings of unconsolidated equity-method investment |
|
491 |
|
|
1,288 |
||
|
Other income |
|
3,030 |
|
|
2,919 |
||
|
Other expense |
|
(2,580) |
|
|
(2,053) |
||
|
|
Total other income |
|
2,587 |
|
|
3,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Interest Expense: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Interest on long-term debt |
|
13,531 |
|
|
13,379 |
||
|
Other interest |
|
1,358 |
|
|
1,029 |
||
|
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction |
|
(941) |
|
|
(656) |
||
|
|
Total interest expense |
|
13,948 |
|
|
13,752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
35,449 |
|
|
19,238 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Income Tax Expense |
|
13,837 |
|
|
6,362 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net Income |
$ |
21,612 |
|
$ |
12,876 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
Idaho Power Company
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
(unaudited)
|
Six Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
Operating Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
General business |
$ |
321,393 |
|
$ |
296,953 |
||
|
Off-system sales |
|
179,839 |
|
|
71,085 |
||
|
Other revenues |
|
6,890 |
|
|
21,310 |
||
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
508,122 |
|
|
389,348 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Operating Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Operation: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Purchased power |
|
130,733 |
|
|
81,007 |
|
|
|
Fuel expense |
|
48,923 |
|
|
49,465 |
|
|
|
Power cost adjustment |
|
48,067 |
|
|
7,998 |
|
|
|
Other |
|
96,079 |
|
|
86,632 |
|
|
|
Gain on sale of emission allowances |
|
(8,235) |
|
|
- |
|
|
Maintenance |
|
35,434 |
|
|
32,960 |
||
|
Depreciation |
|
49,182 |
|
|
50,112 |
||
|
Taxes other than income taxes |
|
11,900 |
|
|
10,529 |
||
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
412,083 |
|
|
318,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Income from Operations |
|
96,039 |
|
|
70,645 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Allowance for equity funds used during construction |
|
3,110 |
|
|
2,543 |
||
|
Earnings of unconsolidated equity-method investment |
|
3,804 |
|
|
5,189 |
||
|
Other income |
|
5,916 |
|
|
5,623 |
||
|
Other expense |
|
(4,257) |
|
|
(3,729) |
||
|
|
Total other income |
|
8,573 |
|
|
9,626 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Interest Expense: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Interest on long-term debt |
|
26,931 |
|
|
26,555 |
||
|
Other interest |
|
2,464 |
|
|
1,889 |
||
|
Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction |
|
(1,786) |
|
|
(1,392) |
||
|
|
Total interest expense |
|
27,609 |
|
|
27,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
77,003 |
|
|
53,219 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Income Tax Expense |
|
30,370 |
|
|
18,834 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net Income |
$ |
46,633 |
|
$ |
34,385 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
Idaho Power Company
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(unaudited)
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
|||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
Assets |
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Electric Plant: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
In service (at original cost) |
$ |
3,532,237 |
|
$ |
3,477,067 |
||
|
Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
(1,401,453) |
|
|
(1,364,640) |
||
|
|
In service - net |
|
2,130,784 |
|
|
2,112,427 |
|
|
Construction work in progress |
|
189,141 |
|
|
149,814 |
||
|
Held for future use |
|
2,810 |
|
|
2,906 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Electric plant - net |
|
2,322,735 |
|
|
2,265,147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Investments and Other Property |
|
81,992 |
|
|
68,049 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Current Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
40,101 |
|
|
49,335 |
||
|
Receivables: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Customer |
|
53,623 |
|
|
49,830 |
|
|
|
Allowance for uncollectible accounts |
|
(721) |
|
|
(833) |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
3,084 |
|
|
3,273 |
|
|
|
Employee notes |
|
2,681 |
|
|
2,951 |
|
|
|
Related parties |
|
303 |
|
|
637 |
|
|
|
Other |
|
3,163 |
|
|
7,399 |
|
|
Accrued unbilled revenues |
|
37,291 |
|
|
38,905 |
||
|
Materials and supplies (at average cost) |
|
34,677 |
|
|
30,451 |
||
|
Fuel stock (at average cost) |
|
17,409 |
|
|
11,739 |
||
|
Prepayments |
|
13,677 |
|
|
17,532 |
||
|
Regulatory assets |
|
1,984 |
|
|
3,064 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
207,272 |
|
|
214,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Deferred Debits: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
American Falls and Milner water rights |
|
31,585 |
|
|
31,585 |
||
|
Company-owned life insurance |
|
35,048 |
|
|
35,401 |
||
|
Regulatory assets |
|
376,537 |
|
|
415,177 |
||
|
Employee notes |
|
2,563 |
|
|
2,862 |
||
|
Other |
|
41,505 |
|
|
42,187 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total deferred debits |
|
487,238 |
|
|
527,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total |
$ |
3,099,237 |
|
$ |
3,074,691 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
Idaho Power Company
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(unaudited)
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
|||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
Capitalization And Liabilities |
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Capitalization: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Common stock equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Common stock, $2.50 par value (50,000,000 shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
authorized; 39,150,812 shares outstanding) |
$ |
97,877 |
|
$ |
97,877 |
|
|
Premium on capital stock |
|
483,707 |
|
|
483,707 |
|
|
|
Capital stock expense |
|
(2,097) |
|
|
(2,097) |
|
|
|
Retained earnings |
|
382,403 |
|
|
361,256 |
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
(4,811) |
|
|
(3,425) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total common stock equity |
|
957,079 |
|
|
937,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Long-term debt |
|
982,770 |
|
|
983,720 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total capitalization |
|
1,939,849 |
|
|
1,921,038 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Current Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Long-term debt due within one year |
|
1,064 |
|
|
- |
||
|
Accounts payable |
|
70,575 |
|
|
79,433 |
||
|
Notes and accounts payable to related parties |
|
473 |
|
|
153 |
||
|
Taxes accrued |
|
82,622 |
|
|
72,994 |
||
|
Interest accrued |
|
14,261 |
|
|
14,105 |
||
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
1,355 |
|
|
3,064 |
||
|
Other |
|
32,485 |
|
|
19,182 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
202,835 |
|
|
188,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Deferred Credits: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
471,024 |
|
|
507,880 |
||
|
Regulatory liabilities |
|
372,289 |
|
|
345,109 |
||
|
Other |
|
113,240 |
|
|
111,733 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total deferred credits |
|
956,553 |
|
|
964,722 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total |
$ |
3,099,237 |
|
$ |
3,074,691 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
Idaho Power Company
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Capitalization
(unaudited)
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
2006 |
|
% |
|
2005 |
|
% |
|||||||
|
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||||||||
Common Stock Equity: |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Common stock |
|
$ |
97,877 |
|
|
|
$ |
97,877 |
|
|
||||
|
Premium on capital stock |
|
|
483,707 |
|
|
|
|
483,707 |
|
|
||||
|
Capital stock expense |
|
|
(2,097) |
|
|
|
|
(2,097) |
|
|
||||
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
382,403 |
|
|
|
|
361,256 |
|
|
||||
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(4,811) |
|
|
|
|
(3,425) |
|
|
||||
|
|
Total common stock equity |
|
|
957,079 |
|
49 |
|
|
937,318 |
|
49 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Long-Term Debt: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
First mortgage bonds: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
7.38% Series due 2007 |
|
|
80,000 |
|
|
|
|
80,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
7.20% Series due 2009 |
|
|
80,000 |
|
|
|
|
80,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
6.60% Series due 2011 |
|
|
120,000 |
|
|
|
|
120,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
4.75% Series due 2012 |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
4.25% Series due 2013 |
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
6 % Series due 2032 |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
5.50% Series due 2033 |
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
5.50% Series due 2034 |
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
5.875% Series due 2034 |
|
|
55,000 |
|
|
|
|
55,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
5.30% Series due 2035 |
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total first mortgage bonds |
|
|
785,000 |
|
|
|
|
785,000 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Pollution control revenue bonds: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Variable Auction Rate Series 2003 due 2024 |
|
|
49,800 |
|
|
|
|
49,800 |
|
|
|||
|
|
6.05% Series 1996A due 2026 |
|
|
68,100 |
|
|
|
|
68,100 |
|
|
|||
|
|
Variable Rate Series 1996B due 2026 |
|
|
24,200 |
|
|
|
|
24,200 |
|
|
|||
|
|
Variable Rate Series 1996C due 2026 |
|
|
24,000 |
|
|
|
|
24,000 |
|
|
|||
|
|
Variable Rate Series 2000 due 2027 |
|
|
4,360 |
|
|
|
|
4,360 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Total pollution control revenue bonds |
|
|
170,460 |
|
|
|
|
170,460 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
American Falls bond guarantee |
|
|
19,885 |
|
|
|
|
19,885 |
|
|
||||
|
Milner Dam note guarantee |
|
|
11,700 |
|
|
|
|
11,700 |
|
|
||||
|
Note guarantee due within one year |
|
|
(1,064) |
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
||||
|
Unamortized premium/discount - net |
|
|
(3,211) |
|
|
|
|
(3,325) |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
Total long-term debt |
|
|
982,770 |
|
51 |
|
|
983,720 |
|
51 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Total Capitalization |
|
$ |
1,939,849 |
|
100 |
|
$ |
1,921,038 |
|
100 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
Idaho Power Company
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(unaudited)
|
Six Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
Operating Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Net income |
$ |
46,633 |
|
$ |
34,385 |
||
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
50,891 |
|
|
53,824 |
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits |
|
(34,564) |
|
|
(4,987) |
|
|
|
Changes in regulatory assets and liabilities |
|
61,143 |
|
|
4,826 |
|
|
|
Undistributed earnings of subsidiary |
|
(3,804) |
|
|
(6,254) |
|
|
|
Provision for uncollectible accounts |
|
(133) |
|
|
(157) |
|
|
|
Other non-cash adjustments to net income |
|
(3,109) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
Gain on sale of assets |
|
(7,800) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
Change in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivables and prepayments |
|
4,954 |
|
|
2,967 |
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
(9,624) |
|
|
(21,946) |
|
|
|
Taxes accrued |
|
9,628 |
|
|
9,309 |
|
|
|
Other current assets |
|
(8,402) |
|
|
(13,466) |
|
|
|
Other current liabilities |
|
10,837 |
|
|
9,909 |
|
|
Other assets |
|
(2,082) |
|
|
(2,263) |
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
1,412 |
|
|
2,428 |
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
115,980 |
|
|
68,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Investing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Additions to utility plant |
|
(101,149) |
|
|
(86,213) |
||
|
Purchase of available-for-sale securities |
|
(9,428) |
|
|
(77,774) |
||
|
Sale of available-for-sale securities |
|
10,607 |
|
|
110,638 |
||
|
Sale of emission allowances |
|
10,865 |
|
|
- |
||
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliate |
|
(11,520) |
|
|
- |
||
|
Other assets |
|
873 |
|
|
252 |
||
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
(99,752) |
|
|
(53,097) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Financing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Dividends on common stock |
|
(25,487) |
|
|
(25,326) |
||
|
Other assets |
|
(8) |
|
|
(369) |
||
|
Other liabilities |
|
33 |
|
|
- |
||
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
(25,462) |
|
|
(25,695) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
|
(9,234) |
|
|
(10,217) |
|||
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
49,335 |
|
|
17,679 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
$ |
40,101 |
|
$ |
7,462 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information: |
||||||||
|
Cash paid during the period for: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Income taxes paid to parent |
$ |
56,717 |
|
$ |
15,366 |
|
|
|
Interest (net of amount capitalized) |
$ |
26,357 |
|
$ |
25,803 |
|
|
Non-cash investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Additions to utility plant |
$ |
9,481 |
|
$ |
4,562 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
Idaho Power Company
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
(unaudited)
|
Three Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net Income |
$ |
21,612 |
|
$ |
12,876 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Unrealized holding gains (losses) arising during the period, |
|
(922) |
|
|
(619) |
|
|
|
|
net of tax of ($523) and ($315) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for gains included |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in net income, net of tax of ($512) and ($159) |
|
(798) |
|
|
(247) |
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains (losses) |
|
(1,720) |
|
|
(866) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Total Comprehensive Income |
$ |
19,892 |
|
$ |
12,010 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||||
|
(thousands of dollars) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Net Income |
$ |
46,633 |
|
$ |
34,385 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Unrealized holding gains (losses) arising during the period, |
|
(248) |
|
|
(1,143) |
|
|
|
|
net of tax of ($65) and ($589) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for gains included |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in net income, net of tax of ($730) and ($393) |
|
(1,138) |
|
|
(611) |
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains (losses) |
|
(1,386) |
|
|
(1,754) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Total Comprehensive Income |
$ |
45,247 |
|
$ |
32,631 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IDACORP, INC. AND
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited)
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES:
This Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q is a combined report of IDACORP, Inc. (IDACORP) and Idaho Power
Company (IPC). These Notes to the
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements apply to both IDACORP and IPC. However, IPC makes no representation as to
the information relating to IDACORP's other operations.
Nature of Business
IDACORP is a holding company formed
in 1998 whose principal operating subsidiary is IPC. IDACORP is subject to the provisions of the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, which provides certain access to
books and records to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and state utility
regulatory commissions and imposes certain record retention and reporting
requirements on IDACORP.
IPC is an electric
utility with a service territory covering approximately 24,000 square miles in
southern Idaho and eastern Oregon. IPC
is regulated by the FERC and the state regulatory commissions of Idaho and
Oregon. IPC is the parent of Idaho
Energy Resources Co., a joint venturer in Bridger Coal Company, which supplies
coal to the Jim Bridger generating plant owned in part by IPC.
At June 30, 2006,
IDACORP's other subsidiaries included:
In the second quarter of
2006, IDACORP management designated the operations of ITI and IDACOMM as assets
held for sale, as defined by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
144. IDACORP's condensed consolidated
financial statements reflect the reclassification of the results of these
businesses as discontinued operations for all periods presented. Discontinued operations are discussed in more
detail in Note 10.
On July 20, 2006,
IDACORP completed the sale of all of the outstanding common stock of ITI to
IdaTech UK Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Investec Group Investments
(UK) Limited.
Principles of
Consolidation
The
condensed consolidated financial statements of IDACORP and IPC include the
accounts of each company and those variable interest entities (VIEs) for which
the companies are the primary beneficiaries.
All significant intercompany balances have been eliminated in
consolidation. Investments in business
entities in which IDACORP and IPC are not the primary beneficiaries, but have
the ability to exercise significant influence over operating and financial
policies, are accounted for using the equity method.
Through IFS, IDACORP also holds significant variable
interests in VIEs for which it is not the primary beneficiary. These VIEs are historic rehabilitation and
affordable housing developments in which IFS holds limited partnership
interests ranging from five to 99 percent.
These investments were acquired between 1996 and 2005. IFS' maximum exposure to loss in these
developments was $94 million at June 30, 2006.
Financial
Statements
In
the opinion of IDACORP and IPC, the accompanying unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments necessary to present
fairly their consolidated financial positions as of June 30, 2006, and
consolidated results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30,
2006 and 2005 and consolidated cash flows for the six months ended June 30,
2006 and 2005. These adjustments are of
a normal and recurring nature. These
financial statements do not contain the complete detail or footnote disclosure
concerning accounting policies and other matters that would be included in full-year
financial statements and therefore they should be read in conjunction with the
audited consolidated financial statements included in IDACORP's and IPC's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. The results of operations for the interim
periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the
full year.
Stock-Based
Compensation
Effective
January 1, 2006, IDACORP and IPC adopted Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), "Share-Based
Payment" (SFAS 123R) using the modified prospective application
method. SFAS 123R changes measurement,
timing and disclosure rules relating to share-based payments, requiring that
the fair value of all share-based payments be expensed. The adoption of SFAS 123R did not have a
material impact on IDACORP's or IPC's financial statements for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2006.
IDACORP's and IPC's
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2005 do not reflect any changes from the adoption of SFAS 123R. The following table illustrates what net
income and earnings per share would have been had the fair value recognition
provisions of SFAS 123 been applied to stock-based employee compensation in
2005 (in thousands of dollars, except
for per share amounts).
|
Three months |
|
Six months |
||||
|
ended |
|
ended |
||||
|
June 30, 2005 |
|
June 30, 2005 |
||||
IDACORP: |
|
||||||
Net income, as reported |
$ |
9,451 |
|
$ |
32,517 |
||
Add: Stock-based employee compensation expense included in |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
reported net income, net of related tax effects |
|
147 |
|
|
322 |
|
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation expense determined |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
under fair value based method for all awards, net of related tax effects |
|
341 |
|
|
756 |
|
|
|
Pro forma net income |
$ |
9,257 |
|
$ |
32,083 |
EPS of common stock: |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Basic and diluted - as reported |
$ |
0.22 |
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
Basic and diluted - pro forma |
|
0.22 |
|
|
0.76 |
|
|
|
||||||
IPC: |
|
|
|
||||
Net income, as reported |
$ |
12,876 |
|
$ |
34,385 |
||
Add: Stock-based employee compensation expense included in |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
reported net income, net of related tax effects |
|
46 |
|
|
144 |
|
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation expense determined |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
under fair value based method for all awards, net of related tax effects |
|
208 |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
Pro forma net income |
$ |
12,714 |
|
$ |
34,020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For purposes of these
2005 pro forma calculations, the estimated fair value of the options,
restricted stock and performance shares is amortized to expense over the vesting
period. The fair value of the restricted
stock and performance shares was the market price of the stock on the date of
grant. The fair value of an option award
was estimated at the date of grant using a binomial option-pricing model. Expenses related to forfeited awards were
reversed in the period in which the forfeiture occurred.
Earnings Per Share
The computation of diluted earnings
per share (EPS) differs from basic EPS only due to the inclusion of potentially
dilutive shares related to stock-based compensation awards.
The following table
presents the computation of IDACORP's basic and diluted earnings per share for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 (in thousands, except for
per share amounts):
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
||||||||||||
|
|
June 30, |
|
June 30, |
||||||||||||
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Numerator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
$ |
22,673 |
|
$ |
12,593 |
|
$ |
49,628 |
|
$ |
38,235 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Weighted-average common shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
outstanding - basic* |
|
|
42,557 |
|
|
42,230 |
|
|
42,515 |
|
|
42,220 |
||
|
Effect of dilutive securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Options |
|
|
90 |
|
|
48 |
|
|
83 |
|
|
54 |
||
|
|
Restricted Stock |
|
|
55 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
15 |
||
|
|
|
Weighted-average common shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
outstanding - diluted* |
|
|
42,702 |
|
|
42,292 |
|
|
42,642 |
|
|
42,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Basic earnings per share from continuing operations |
|
$ |
0.53 |
|
$ |
0.30 |
|
$ |
1.17 |
|
$ |
0.91 |
||||
Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations |
|
$ |
0.53 |
|
$ |
0.30 |
|
$ |
1.16 |
|
$ |
0.91 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
*Weighted average shares outstanding excludes non-vested shares issued under stock compensation plans. |
||||||||||||||||
The diluted EPS
computation excluded 653,200 common stock options in 2006 and 1,051,114 in 2005
because the options' exercise prices were greater than the average market price
of the common stock during those periods.
In total, 1,247,665 options were outstanding at June 30, 2006, with
expiration dates between 2010 and 2016.
Reclassifications
Certain prior year amounts have been
reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Net income and shareholders' equity were not
affected by these reclassifications.
New Accounting
Pronouncements
FIN
48:
In June 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued
FASB Interpretation No. 48, "Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes -
an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109" (FIN 48), which clarifies the
accounting for uncertainty in tax positions.
FIN 48 requires that IDACORP and IPC recognize in their financial
statements the impact of a tax position if that position will more likely than
not be sustained upon examination, including resolution of any related appeals
or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position. The
provisions of FIN 48 are effective for fiscal years beginning after December
15, 2006, with the cumulative effect of the change in accounting principle
recorded as an adjustment to opening retained earnings. IDACORP and IPC are
currently evaluating the impact of adopting FIN 48 on their financial
statements.
2. INCOME TAXES:
Income Tax Rate
In accordance with interim reporting
requirements, IDACORP and IPC use an estimated annual effective tax rate for
computing their provisions for income taxes.
IDACORP's effective rate on continuing operations for the six months
ended June 30, 2006, was 23.6 percent, compared to 8.5 percent for the six
months ended June 30, 2005. IPC's
effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2006, was 39.4 percent,
compared to 35.4 percent for the six months ended June 30, 2005. The differences in estimated annual effective
tax rates are primarily due to the increase in pre-tax earnings at IDACORP and
IPC, the loss of the simplified service cost method tax deduction at IPC,
timing and amount of regulatory flow-through tax adjustments at IPC, and
slightly lower tax credits from IFS.
Status of Audit
Proceedings
In March 2005, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) began its examination of IDACORP's 2001 through 2003 tax
years. In October 2005, the Idaho State
Tax Commission (ISTC) also began its examination of the same tax years. Management believes that an adequate
provision for income taxes and related interest charges has been made for the
open years 2001 and after. The accrued
amounts are classified as a current liability in taxes accrued.
As of June 30, 2006, the
IRS had substantially completed its issue development and research for the 2001-2003
tax years, with the exception of the capitalized overhead cost method discussed
below. However, the examination is not
complete and management cannot predict which examined items may be adjusted by
the IRS. The ISTC issued its examination
report and assessment for the 2001-2003 tax years on March 30, 2006. The adjustments made by the ISTC were minor,
as was the assessment of tax and interest.
Capitalized Overhead
Costs: On August 2, 2005, the IRS and the Treasury
Department issued guidance interpreting the meaning of "routine and
repetitive" for purposes of the simplified service cost and simplified
production methods of the Internal Revenue Code section 263A uniform
capitalization rules. The guidance was
issued in the form of a revenue ruling (Rev. Rul. 2005-53) and proposed and
temporary regulations. The regulations
are effective for tax years ending on or after August 2, 2005, and the revenue
ruling applies for all prior open years.
Both pieces of guidance take a more restrictive view of the definition
of self-constructed assets produced by a taxpayer on a "routine and
repetitive" basis than did treasury regulations in effect at the time IPC
changed to the simplified service cost method.
Generally, section 263A
requires the capitalization of all direct costs and those indirect costs, known
as "mixed service costs", which directly benefit or are incurred by
reason of the production of property by a taxpayer. The treasury regulations for section 263A
provide several "safe-harbor" methods taxpayers may adopt in order to
comply with the statute. The simplified
service cost method is one of the methods available for the calculation of
indirect overhead (mixed service costs) cost capitalization. IPC changed to the simplified service cost
method for both the self-construction of utility plant and production of
electricity beginning with its 2001 federal income tax return.
For IPC, the simplified
service cost method produces a current tax deduction for costs capitalized to
electricity production that are capitalized into fixed assets for financial
accounting purposes. Deferred income tax
expense has not been provided for this deduction because the prescribed
regulatory tax accounting treatment does not allow for inclusion of such
deferred tax expense in current rates.
Rate regulated enterprises are required to recognize such adjustments as
regulatory assets if it is probable that such amounts will be recovered from
customers in future rates.
For fiscal years 2002
through 2004, the simplified service cost method decreased IPC's income tax
expense by $60 million and resulted in cash refunds from federal and state tax
authorities of $75 million. For years
2004 and prior open tax years, if IPC cannot satisfy the guidance in Rev. Rul.
2005-35 it would be required to use another method of uniform capitalization,
which is expected to be less favorable to IPC than the simplified service cost
method. A less favorable method could
result in a one time charge to earnings and reduced cash flow that could be
partially offset by carryover tax credits, accelerated tax depreciation,
changes in tax regulations and state regulatory recovery.
The temporary regulations
are effective for IPC's 2005 and future tax years and, as drafted, preclude IPC
from using this method for self-constructed assets. In the third quarter of 2005 IPC reversed its
previously accrued 2005 tax deduction for capitalized overhead costs for both
financial reporting and estimated tax payment purposes, and has not accrued a
deduction for 2006. IPC is currently
evaluating alternatives for a new uniform capitalization method.
3. COMMON STOCK:
During the six months
ended June 30, 2006, IDACORP entered into the following transactions involving
its common stock:
On January 1, 2006,
IDACORP adopted SFAS 123R. SFAS 123R
requires that any amounts of unearned stock-based compensation be charged
against common equity. Prior to January
1, 2006, IDACORP had aggregated its unearned compensation balances with
treasury stock on its consolidated balance sheets.
4. FINANCING:
The following table
summarizes IDACORP's long-term debt (in thousands of dollars):
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||||
First mortgage bonds: |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
7.38% Series due 2007 |
$ |
80,000 |
|
$ |
80,000 |
|||
|
7.20% Series due 2009 |
|
80,000 |
|
|
80,000 |
|||
|
6.60% Series due 2011 |
|
120,000 |
|
|
120,000 |
|||
|
4.75% Series due 2012 |
|
100,000 |
|
|
100,000 |
|||
|
4.25% Series due 2013 |
|
70,000 |
|
|
70,000 |
|||
|
6% Series due 2032 |
|
100,000 |
|
|
100,000 |
|||
|
5.50% Series due 2033 |
|
70,000 |
|
|
70,000 |
|||
|
5.50% Series due 2034 |
|
50,000 |
|
|
50,000 |
|||
|
5.875% Series due 2034 |
|
55,000 |
|
|
55,000 |
|||
|
5.30% Series due 2035 |
|
60,000 |
|
|
60,000 |
|||
|
|
Total first mortgage bonds |
|
785,000 |
|
|
785,000 |
||
Pollution control revenue bonds: |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Variable Auction Rate Series 2003 due 2024 (a) |
|
49,800 |
|
|
49,800 |
|||
|
6.05% Series 1996A due 2026 |
|
68,100 |
|
|
68,100 |
|||
|
Variable Rate Series 1996B due 2026 |
|
24,200 |
|
|
24,200 |
|||
|
Variable Rate Series 1996C due 2026 |
|
24,000 |
|
|
24,000 |
|||
|
Variable Rate Series 2000 due 2027 |
|
4,360 |
|
|
4,360 |
|||
|
|
Total pollution control revenue bonds |
|
170,460 |
|
|
170,460 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
American Falls bond guarantee |
|
19,885 |
|
|
19,885 |
||||
Milner Dam note guarantee |
|
11,700 |
|
|
11,700 |
||||
Unamortized premium (discount) - net |
|
(3,211) |
|
|
(3,325) |
||||
Debt related to investments in affordable housing |
|
40,675 |
|
|
48,481 |
||||
Other subsidiary debt |
|
7,591 |
|
|
7,686 |
||||
Less: Liabilities held for sale |
|
(18) |
|
|
(35) |
||||
|
Total |
|
1,032,082 |
|
|
1,039,852 |
|||
Current maturities of long-term debt |
|
(15,949) |
|
|
(16,307) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Total long-term debt |
$ |
1,016,133 |
|
$ |
1,023,545 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
(a) |
Humboldt County Pollution Control Revenue bonds are secured by first mortgage bonds, bringing the total first mortgage |
||||||||
|
bonds outstanding at June 30, 2006, to $834.8 million. |
||||||||
Long-Term Financing
IDACORP currently has $679 million
remaining on two shelf registration statements that can be used for the
issuance of unsecured debt (including medium-term notes) and preferred or
common stock. IPC currently has in place
a registration statement that can be used for the issuance of an aggregate
principal amount of $240 million of first mortgage bonds (including medium-term
notes) and unsecured debt.
The amount of first
mortgage bonds issuable by IPC is limited to a maximum of $1.1 billion and by
property, earnings and other provisions of the mortgage and supplemental
indentures thereto. IPC may amend the
indenture and increase this amount without consent of the holders of the first
mortgage bonds. The indenture requires
that IPC's net earnings must be at least twice the annual interest requirements
on all outstanding debt of equal or prior rank, including the bonds that IPC
may propose to issue. Under certain
circumstances, the net earnings test does not apply, including the issuance of
refunding bonds to retire outstanding bonds that mature in less than two years
or that are of an equal or higher interest rate, or prior lien bonds.
As of June 30, 2006, IPC
could issue under the mortgage approximately $452 million of additional first
mortgage bonds based on retired first mortgage bonds and $645 million of
additional first mortgage bonds based on unfunded property additions. As of June 30, 2006, unfunded property
additions were approximately $1.1 billion.
Property additions consist of electric or gas property, or property used
in connection therewith. Property
additions exclude securities, contracts or choses in action, merchandise and
equipment for consumption or resale, materials and supplies, property used
principally for production or gathering of natural gas and any power sites and
uncompleted works under Idaho state permits.
In determining net property additions, IPC deducts all retired funded
property from gross property additions except to the extent of certain credits
for released funded property.
The mortgage requires
IPC to spend or appropriate 15 percent of its annual gross operating revenues
for maintenance, retirement or amortization of its properties. IPC may, however, anticipate or make up these
expenditures or appropriations within the five years that immediately follow or
precede a particular year.
The mortgage secures all
bonds issued under the indenture equally and ratably, without preference,
priority or distinction. IPC may issue
additional first mortgage bonds in the future, and those first mortgage bonds
will also be secured by the mortgage.
The lien of the indenture constitutes a first mortgage on all the
properties of IPC, subject only to certain limited exceptions including liens
for taxes and assessments that are not delinquent and minor excepted
encumbrances. Certain of the properties
of IPC are subject to easements, leases, contracts, covenants, workmen's
compensation awards and similar encumbrances and minor defects and clouds
common to properties. The mortgage does
not create a lien on revenues or profits, or notes or accounts receivable,
contracts or choses in action, except as permitted by law during a completed
default, securities or cash, except when pledged, or merchandise or equipment
manufactured or acquired for resale. The
mortgage creates a lien on the interest of IPC in property subsequently acquired,
other than excepted property, subject to limitations in the case of
consolidation, merger or sale of all or substantially all of the assets of IPC.
At June 30, 2006, IFS
had $41 million of debt related to investments in affordable housing with interest
rates ranging from 3.65 percent to 8.38 percent, due between 2006 and
2010. The investments in affordable
housing developments that collateralize this debt had a net book value of $68
million at June 30, 2006. IFS' $13
million Series 2003-1 tax credit note is non-recourse to both IFS and
IDACORP. The $7 million Series 2003-2
tax credit note and other outstanding debt are recourse only to IFS.
Credit Facilities
IDACORP has a $150 million five-year
credit facility that expires on March 31, 2010.
At June 30, 2006, no loans were outstanding on IDACORP's credit facility
and $45 million of commercial paper was outstanding.
At June 30, 2006, IPC
had regulatory authority to incur up to $250 million of short-term
indebtedness. IPC has a $200 million
five-year credit facility that expires on March 31, 2010. At June 30, 2006, no loans were outstanding
on IPC's credit facility and no commercial paper was outstanding.
5. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:
Off-Balance Sheet
Arrangements
The federal Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 and similar state statutes establish operational,
reclamation and closure standards that must be met during and upon completion
of mining activities. These obligations
mandate that mine property be restored consistent with specific standards and
the approved reclamation plan. The
mining operations at the Bridger Coal Company are subject to these reclamation
and closure requirements. IPC has agreed
to guarantee the performance of reclamation activities at Bridger Coal Company,
of which Idaho Energy Resources Co., a subsidiary of IPC, owns a one-third
interest. This guarantee, which is
renewed each December, was $60 million at June 30, 2006. Bridger Coal has a reclamation trust fund set
aside specifically for the purpose of paying these reclamation costs and
expects that the fund will be sufficient to cover all such costs. Because of the existence of the fund, the
estimated fair value of this guarantee is minimal.
As part of the sale of
its forward book of electricity trading contracts, IE had entered into an
Indemnity Agreement with Sempra Energy Trading guaranteeing the performance of
one of the counterparties through 2009.
The maximum amount payable by IE under the Indemnity Agreement was $20
million. During the second quarter this
guarantee terminated and IE was refunded all outstanding margin deposits.
Regional Transmission Organization
Over the last several years, IPC has
spent funds supporting the development of Grid West, a regional transmission
organization. Through the second quarter
of 2006, IPC had loaned Grid West $1.1 million and had accumulated $2.3 million
of costs in a deferred expense account, anticipating future recovery through
Grid West tariffs. IPC no longer expects
reimbursement of the either amount through Grid West. IPC's accumulation of Grid West development
costs in a deferred expense account is consistent with a 2004 accounting order
that IPC received from the FERC.
In April 2006, IPC began
the first step in an effort to pursue recovery of the Grid West development
costs through retail rates. The filings
request that the IPUC and OPUC confirm that it is proper for IPC to transfer
the costs to a regulatory assets account for possible amortization and recovery
in future rates and IPC plans to file additional requests to begin to amortize
and collect the development costs through rates. The cases in both states are ongoing. If IPC is unsuccessful with either the IPUC
or OPUC or with the FERC, some or all of the $3.4 million will be expensed.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Reference is made to
IDACORP's and IPC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
for a discussion of all material pending legal proceedings to which IDACORP and
IPC and their subsidiaries are parties.
The following discussion provides a summary of material developments
that occurred in those proceedings during the period covered by this report and
of any new material proceedings instituted during the period covered by this
report.
Proceedings Relating to the Western Power Markets
IDACORP, IPC and/or IE are involved
in a number of proceedings which relate to the western power markets.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Grays Harbor County,
Washington
On July 25, 2006, the case was
dismissed with prejudice by the Honorable Robert H. Whaley, sitting by
designation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
pursuant to an agreed resolution of the matter between Grays Harbor and
IDACORP, IPC and IE. The settlement did
not have a material adverse effect on IDACORP's consolidated financial
position, results of operation or cash flows.
Port of Seattle
On March 7, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard argument on the Port of Seattle's appeal of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's dismissal of
its complaint with prejudice. On March
30, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the Port of Seattle's
appeal and affirming the dismissal of the entire case. The dismissal of the case, with prejudice,
became final on June 28, 2006, when the Port of Seattle elected not to file a
certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wah Chang
Following the October 18, 2005,
consolidation of Wah Chang's appeal of the dismissal order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with an identical order in Wah Chang v. Duke
Energy Trading and Marketing, IDACORP, IPC and IE filed an answering brief on
November 30, 2005. Wah Chang filed its
reply brief on January 6, 2006. Wah
Chang's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has now been
fully briefed; however, no date has yet been set for oral argument. IDACORP, IPC and IE intend to vigorously
defend their position in this proceeding and believe this matter will not have
a material adverse effect on their consolidated financial positions, results of
operations or cash flows.
City of Tacoma
The City of Tacoma's March 10, 2005,
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the dismissal of
the case by Judge Whaley has been fully briefed; however, no date has yet been
set for oral argument. IDACORP, IPC and
IE intend to vigorously defend their position in this proceeding and believe
this matter will not have a material adverse effect on their consolidated
financial positions, results of operations or cash flows.
Wholesale
Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II
In April 2002, several subsidiaries
of Reliant Energy, Inc. (Reliant) and Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) filed
cross-complaints against IE and IPC and numerous other participants in the
California energy market. The cross-complaints sought indemnification
for any liability that may arise from original complaints filed against Reliant
and Duke with respect to charges of unlawful and unfair business practices in
the California energy markets under California law. On November 9, 2005, both Duke and Reliant
submitted to the Court stipulations with IE and IPC to conditionally dismiss,
with prejudice, the cross-complaints, subject to reinstatement if proposed
settlements between Duke and Reliant and the plaintiffs of the underlying
actions were not approved by the Court.
Neither IE nor IPC paid any amount to Duke or to Reliant to obtain these
dismissals.
On December 14, 2005, the
Court granted final approval of the Duke settlement with the plaintiffs. The Court's order granting final approval of
the Duke settlement became final on March 14, 2006, as the Court's docket does
not indicate that any appeal was filed. On
January 6, 2006, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the Reliant settlement
with the plaintiffs in these cases. On
March 30, 2006, oppositions and objections to the Reliant settlement
were filed by certain parties under the Eggers case caption, including
by the States of Montana and Idaho.
Neither IPC nor IE is a party to the Eggers
case, which seeks to recover damages on behalf of consumers in western states
other than California. A hearing on final approval of the Reliant
settlement was held on April 28, 2006.
At the hearing, the Court ruled that the California class settlement
would receive final approval contingent on a satisfactory showing that the
notice to those class members was adequate.
As for the Eggers case, the
Court set a briefing schedule to provide evidence and oral argument regarding
the State of Montana's treatment by its class representative and Montana's
connection to the California energy market.
On May 30, 2006, the Court signed and approved the Judgment, Final Order,
and Decree Granting Final Approval to the Reliant settlement. The Court also signed and approved the Order
Granting Reliant's Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination. The order approving the Reliant settlement
became final on July 31, 2006. On July 14, 2006, the Court
held a separate hearing to consider approval of the settlement of the Eggers action, and thereafter signed and
approved the Judgment, Final Order and
Decree Granting Final Approval to the Class Action Settlement in the Eggers case.
IE and IPC will continue
to vigorously defend their position in this proceeding until all appeal periods
have expired and believe this matter will not have a material adverse effect on
their consolidated financial positions, results of operations or cash flows.
California Refund
On February 17, 2006, IE and IPC
jointly filed with the California Parties (Pacific Gas & Electric Company,
San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, the
California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight
Board, the California Department of Water Resources and the California Attorney
General) an Offer of Settlement at the FERC.
Non-settling parties had until March 9, 2006, to elect to become an
additional settling party. The majority
of non-settling parties chose to opt out of the settlement. After consideration of comments, the FERC
approved the settlement on May 22, 2006.
Under the terms of the settlement, IE and IPC assigned $24.25 million of
the rights to accounts receivable from the California Independent System
Operator (CalISO) and California Power Exchange (CalPX) to the California
Parties to pay into an escrow account for refunds to settling parties. Amounts from that escrow not used for
settling parties and $1.5 million of the remaining IE and IPC receivables that
are to be retained by the CalPX are available to fund, at least partially,
payment of the claims of any non-settling parties if they prevail in the
remaining litigation of this matter. Any
excess funds remaining at the end of the case are to be returned to
IDACORP. Approximately $10.25 million of
the remaining IE and IPC receivables was paid to IE and IPC under the Settlement.
On June 21, 2006, the
Port of Seattle, Washington filed a request for rehearing of the FERC order
approving the Settlement. On July 10,
2006, IDACORP and the California Parties filed a response to Port of Seattle's
request for rehearing. On July 21, 2006,
the FERC issued a tolling order in response to the Port of Seattle's request
for rehearing, giving the FERC additional time to respond to the request. While IDACORP believes that this Settlement
resolves all issues it may have related to the California Refund proceedings,
it is possible that additional issues that affect IDACORP may arise in the
future.
For some time the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals held in abeyance consolidated petitions for review (in
excess of 100) of FERC orders related to the California Refund proceeding. On September 21, 2004, the Ninth Circuit
convened case management proceedings on these petitions and on October 22,
2004, severed a subset of issues for briefing related to: (1) which parties are
subject to the FERC's refund jurisdiction under section 201(f) of the Federal
Power Act; (2) the temporal scope of refunds under section 206 of the Federal
Power Act; and (3) which categories of transaction are subject to refunds. Oral argument was held on April 12-13,
2005. On September 6, 2005, the Ninth
Circuit issued a decision on the jurisdictional issues concluding that the FERC
lacked refund authority over wholesale electric energy sales made by
governmental entities and non-public utilities.
On August 2, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision on the
appropriate temporal reach and the type of transactions subject to FERC refund
orders and concluded, among other things, that all transactions at issue in the
case that occurred within or as a result of the CalPX and the Cal ISO were the
proper subject of refund proceedings; refused to expand the refund proceedings
into the bilateral markets including transactions with the California
Department of Water Resources; approved the refund effective date as October 2,
2000, but also required FERC to consider whether refunds, including possibly
market-wide refunds, should be required for an earlier time due to claims that
some market participants had violated governing tariff obligations (although
the decision did not specify when that time would start, the California Parties
generally had sought further refunds starting May 1, 2000); and effectively
expanded the scope of the refund proceeding to transactions within the CalPX
and CalISO markets outside the 24-hour spot market and energy exchange
transactions.
IDACORP believes that these
decisions should have no material effect on IDACORP under the terms of the
IDACORP Settlement with the California Parties approved by the FERC on May 22,
2006.
California Power Exchange Chargeback
Based upon the Offer of Settlement
filed with the FERC on February 17, 2006, between the California Parties and IE
and IPC and discussed above in "California Refund", the California
Parties supported a motion filed by IE and IPC with the FERC seeking an Order
Directing Return of Chargeback Amounts currently held by the CalPX totaling
$2.27 million. In the May 22, 2006 Order
approving the Settlement, the FERC granted the IE and IPC motion for return of
chargeback funds held by the CalPX. On
June 1, 2006, IE received approximately $2.5 million from the CalPX
representing the return of $2.27 million in chargeback funds plus interest.
Market Manipulation
Pursuant to the Offer of Settlement
filed with the FERC on February 17, 2006, between the California Parties and IE
and IPC and discussed above in "California Refund", the requests for
rehearing of the California Parties and other settling parties of the FERC's
approval of an earlier settlement with the FERC staff regarding allegations of "gaming"
are deemed to be withdrawn. On May 22,
2006, the FERC issued an order approving the February 17, 2006, Offer of
Settlement. If the FERC denies the few
remaining requests for rehearing filed by non-settling parties of the FERC's
approval of the "gaming" case settlement, the effect would be to
terminate the FERC investigations as to IPC and IE regarding bidding behavior,
physical withholding of power and "gaming" without finding of
wrongdoing.
Pacific Northwest Refund
On September 24, 2001, the FERC
Administrative Law Judge submitted recommendations and findings to the FERC
finding that prices in the Pacific Northwest during the December 25, 2000,
through June 20, 2001, time period should be governed by the Mobile-Sierra
standard of public interest rather than the just and reasonable standard, that
the Pacific Northwest spot markets were competitive and that no refunds should
be allowed. The FERC approved these
recommendations on June 25, 2003, and multiple parties then appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. IE and
IPC were parties in the FERC proceeding and are participating in the
appeal. Briefing on the appeal was
completed on May 25, 2005; however, no date has been set for oral
argument. The Settlement approved by the
FERC on May 22, 2006, resolves all claims the California Parties have against
IE and IPC in the Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding. The settlement with Grays Harbor resolves all
claims Grays Harbor has against IE and IPC in this proceeding. IE and IPC are unable to predict the outcome
as to all other parties in this proceeding.
Other Litigation
Shareholder Lawsuit
On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho (Judge Edward J. Lodge) issued an Order
adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Williams issued on
September 14, 2005, granting the defendants' (IDACORP and certain of its officers
and directors) motion to dismiss because plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
pleading requirements for loss causation.
However, Judge Lodge modified the Report and Recommendation and ruled
that plaintiffs had until May 1, 2006, to file an amended complaint only as to
the loss causation element. On May 1,
2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on June 16, 2006. The
briefing schedule requires plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to
dismiss to be filed on or before August 14, 2006, and the defendants' response
on or before August 28, 2006. IDACORP
and the other defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against the
allegations. IDACORP cannot, however,
predict the outcome of these matters.
Western Shoshone
National Council: On April 10, 2006, the Western Shoshone National
Council (which purports to be the governing body of the Western Shoshone
Nation) and certain of its individual tribal members filed a First Amended
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada, naming IPC and other unrelated entities as defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that
IPC's ownership interest in certain land, minerals, water or other resources
was converted and fraudulently conveyed from lands in which the plaintiffs had
historical ownership rights and Indian title dating back to the 1860's or
before. Although it is unclear from the
complaint, it appears plaintiffs' claims relate primarily to lands within the
state of Nevada. Plaintiffs seek a
judgment declaring their title to land and other resources, disgorgement of
profits from the sale or use of the land and resources, a decree declaring a
constructive trust in favor of the plaintiffs of IPC's assets connected to the
lands or resources, an accounting of money or things of value received from the
sale or use of the lands or resources, monetary damages in an unspecified
amount for waste and trespass and a judgment declaring that IPC has no right to
possess or use the lands or resources.
On May 1, 2006, IPC
filed an Answer to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint denying all liability to
the plaintiffs and asserting certain affirmative defenses including collateral
estoppel and res judicata, preemption, impossibility and impracticability,
failure to join all real and necessary parties, and various defenses based on
untimeliness. On June 19, 2006, IPC
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, asserting, among
other things, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that
plaintiffs failed to join an indispensable party (namely, the United States
government). Plaintiffs must respond to
the motion by August 18, 2006. IPC may
then file a reply memorandum by September 29, 2006. IPC intends to vigorously defend its position
in this proceeding, but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
6. REGULATORY MATTERS:
General Rate Cases
Oregon: On September 21, 2004, IPC filed an application with
the OPUC to increase general rates an average of 17.5 percent or approximately
$4.4 million annually. A partial
settlement resolved most issues in a manner consistent with the Idaho
result. The most significant issue in
this proceeding was the appropriate quantification of net power supply expenses
for purposes of setting rates. The OPUC
staff proposed that net power supply expenses for IPC be set at a negative
number - meaning that IPC should be able to sell enough surplus energy to pay
for all fuel and purchased power expenses and still have revenue left over to
offset other costs. The bulk of IPC's
rebuttal was directed at this position.
A hearing was conducted on May 23, 2005.
The OPUC issued its order in July 2005 authorizing an increase of $0.6
million in annual revenues for an average of 2.37 percent. The OPUC adopted the OPUC staff's argument
for the negative net power supply costs, thus reducing IPC's initial rate
request of $4.4 million by $2.4 million with this one adjustment.
On September 26, 2005,
IPC filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of Marion County, Oregon asking
the court to reverse the portion of the OPUC's general rate case order related
to the determination of net power supply costs.
On March 30, 2006, IPC filed its opening brief. Oral argument was held in June 2006. The parties are currently preparing briefs on
the subject of market prices.
Deferred (Accrued)
Net Power Supply Costs
IPC's deferred (accrued) net power
supply costs consisted of the following (in thousands of dollars):
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
|||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||
Idaho PCA current year: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferral (accrual) for the 2006-2007 rate year |
$ |
- |
|
$ |
3,684 |
|
Deferral (accrual) for the 2007-2008 rate year * |
|
(47,064) |
|
|
- |
Idaho PCA true-up awaiting recovery (refund): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorized May 2005 |
|
- |
|
|
28,567 |
|
Authorized May 2006 |
|
(19,265) |
|
|
- |
Oregon deferral: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001 costs |
|
7,637 |
|
|
8,411 |
|
2005 costs |
|
2,790 |
|
|
2,880 |
|
Total deferral (accrual) |
$ |
(55,902) |
|
$ |
43,542 |
* includes a $42.1 million credit for excess SO2 emission allowance sales allocated to customers |
Idaho: IPC has a
Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) mechanism that provides for annual adjustments to
the rates charged to its Idaho retail customers. These adjustments are based on forecasts of
net power supply costs, which are fuel and purchased power less off-system
sales, and the true-up of the prior year's forecast. During the year, 90 percent of the difference
between the actual and forecasted costs is deferred with interest. The ending balance of this deferral, called
the true-up for the current year's portion and the true-up of the true-up for
the prior years' unrecovered portion, is then included in the calculation of
the next year's PCA.
On May 25, 2006, the
IPUC approved IPC's 2006-2007 PCA filing with an effective date of June 1,
2006. The filing reduced the PCA
component of customers' rates from the existing level, which was recovering
$76.7 million above then-existing base rates, to a level that is $46.8 million
below those base rates, a decrease of approximately $123.5 million.
On April 13, 2006, IPC
filed testimony requesting review of one component of the PCA referred to as
the load growth adjustment rate, as agreed to in the stipulation of the parties
settling the 2005 general rate case. The
load growth adjustment rate provides a reduction to power supply expenses for
PCA purposes when loads grow from levels included in IPC's base rates. IPC maintains that this reduction to expenses
should be equal to the relative increase in revenues received as a result of
load growth. Other parties to the
proceeding are scheduled to file testimony by September 15, 2006. A hearing is scheduled for October 30,
2006. The dollar impact of load growth
adjustment rates is significant and increasing, based on continuing growth
within IPC's territory. Any increase in
the load growth adjustment rate as a result of this proceeding would magnify
the impact.
On June 1, 2005, IPC
implemented the 2005-2006 PCA, which held the PCA component of customers' rates
at the existing level, recovering $71 million above base rates. By IPUC order, the PCA included $12 million
in lost revenues and $2 million in related interest resulting from IPC's
Irrigation Load Reduction Program that was in place in 2001. The PCA deferred recovery of approximately
$28 million of power supply costs, or 4.75 percent, for one year to help
mitigate the impacts of other rate increases.
The $28 million was included in the 2006-2007 PCA filing, and IPC earned
a two percent carrying charge on the balance.
Oregon: On April 28,
2006, IPC filed for an accounting order with the OPUC to defer net power supply
costs for the period of May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007, in anticipation of
higher than "normal" power supply expenses. "Normal" power supply expenses were
set at a negative number (meaning that under normal water conditions IPC should
be able to sell enough surplus energy to pay for all fuel and purchased power
expenses and still have revenue left over to offset other costs) in the 2003
Oregon general rate case, which IPC is contesting. The forecasted system net power supply
expenses included in this deferral filing were $64 million, which is $65.9
million higher than the normalized power supply expenses established in the
Oregon general rate case. IPC requested
authorization to defer an estimated $3.3 million, the Oregon jurisdictional
share of the $65.9 million. IPC also
requested that it earn its Oregon authorized rate of return on the deferred
balance and recover the amount through rates in future years, as approved by
the OPUC. A settlement conference is
scheduled for August 17, 2006.
On March 2, 2005, IPC
filed for an accounting order with the OPUC to defer net power supply costs for
the period of March 2, 2005 through February 28, 2006, in anticipation of
continued low water conditions. The
forecasted net power supply costs included in this filing were $169 million, of
which $3 million related to the Oregon jurisdiction. IPC proposed to use the same methodology for
this deferral filing that was accepted in 2002 for Oregon's share of IPC's 2001
net power supply expenses. On July 1,
2005, IPC, the OPUC staff, and the Citizen's Utility Board entered into a
stipulation requesting that the OPUC accept IPC's proposed methodology. Under this methodology, IPC will earn its
Oregon authorized rate of return on the deferred balance and will recover the
amount through rates in future years, as approved by the OPUC. The OPUC issued Order 05-870 on July 28,
2005, approving the stipulation. On
April 19, 2006, IPC filed a request for review and acknowledgement of its
deferred net power supply costs for the period of March 2, 2005, through
February 28, 2006. The deferral amount
was quantified by IPC to be $2.7 million.
On June 14, 2006, a settlement conference was held; however, settlement
is pending further staff review.
The timing of future
recovery of Oregon power supply cost deferrals is subject to an Oregon statute
that specifically limits rate amortizations of deferred costs to six percent
per year. IPC is currently amortizing
through rates power supply costs associated with the western energy situation
of 2001. Full recovery of the 2001
deferral is not expected until 2009, at which time the rate amortization of the
2005-2006 deferral could begin. A 2006-2007
deferral would have to be amortized sequentially following the full recovery of
the authorized 2005-2006 deferral.
Emission Allowances
In June 2005, IPC filed
applications with the IPUC and OPUC requesting blanket authorization for the
sale of excess SO2 emission allowances and an accounting order. The IPUC issued Order 29852 on August 22,
2005, authorizing the sale and interim accounting treatment. The OPUC issued Order 05-983 on September 13,
2005, stating that IPC did not need a blanket order to sell emission allowances
and approved the interim accounting treatment.
As of June 30, 2006, IPC
has sold 78,000 SO2 emission allowances for approximately $81.6
million (before income taxes and expenses) on the open market. After subtracting transaction fees, the total
amount of sales proceeds to be allocated to the Idaho jurisdiction is
approximately $76.8 million ($46.8 million net of tax, assuming a tax rate of
approximately 39 percent). Through
allowance vintage year 2006, IPC has approximately 32,000 excess allowances
remaining.
Pursuant to the IPUC
order, the IPUC staff held several workshops and settlement discussions. On May 12, 2006, the IPUC approved a
stipulation filed in April 2006 by IPC on behalf of several parties. The stipulation allows IPC to retain ten
percent, or approximately $4.7 million after tax, of the emission allowance net
proceeds as a shareholder benefit. The
remaining 90 percent of the sales proceeds ($69.1 million) plus a carrying
charge will be recorded as a customer benefit and included as a line-item in
the PCA true-up. The carrying charge
will be calculated on $42.1 million, the net-of-tax amount allocable to Idaho
jurisdiction customers. This customer
benefit is included in IPC's PCA calculations as a credit to the PCA true-up balance
and will be reflected in PCA rates during the June 1, 2007 through May 31, 2008
PCA rate year.
There is no current OPUC
proceeding with respect to SO2 emission allowances, and IPC cannot
predict the outcome of any future OPUC ratemaking proceeding relating to this
issue.
7. INDUSTRY SEGMENT INFORMATION:
IDACORP has identified
two reportable segments: utility operations and IFS. ITI and IDACOMM, which had previously been
identified as reportable segments, are now reported as discontinued operations
(see Note 10).
The utility operations
segment's primary sources of revenue are the regulated operations of IPC. IPC's regulated operations include the
generation, transmission, distribution, purchase and sale of electricity. This segment also includes income from
Bridger Coal Company, an unconsolidated joint venture also subject to
regulation. The IFS segment represents
that subsidiary's investments in affordable housing developments and historic
rehabilitation projects. Operating
segments not included above are below the quantitative thresholds for
reportable segments and are included in the "All Other"
category. This category is comprised of
Ida-West's joint venture investments in small hydroelectric generation
projects, the remaining activities of energy marketer IE, which wound down its
operations in 2003, and IDACORP's holding company expenses.
The following table
summarizes the segment information for IDACORP's utility operations and IFS and
the total of all other segments, and reconciles this information to total
enterprise amounts (in thousands of dollars):
|
Utility |
|
|
|
All |
|
|
|
Consolidated |
||||||||
|
Operations |
IFS |
|
|
Other |
|
Eliminations1 |
|
Total |
||||||||
Three months ended June 30, 2006: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Revenues |
$ |
240,848 |
|
$ |
357 |
|
|
$ |
1,430 |
|
$ |
- |
|
$ |
242,635 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations |
|
21,612 |
|
|
2,069 |
|
|
|
(1,008) |
|
|
- |
|
|
22,673 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Three months ended June 30, 2005: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Revenues |
$ |
199,708 |
|
$ |
354 |
|
|
$ |
1,228 |
|
$ |
- |
|
$ |
201,290 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations |
|
12,876 |
|
|
2,594 |
|
|
|
(2,877) |
|
|
- |
|
|
12,593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Total assets at June 30, 2006 |
|
3,099,237 |
|
$ |
135,147 |
|
|
$ |
176,959 |
|
$ |
(61,607) |
|
$ |
3,349,736 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Six months ended June 30, 2006: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Revenues |
$ |
508,122 |
|
$ |
699 |
|
|
$ |
2,154 |
|
$ |
- |
|
$ |
510,975 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations |
|
46,633 |
|
|
4,231 |
|
|
|
(1,236) |
|
|
- |
|
|
49,628 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Six months ended June 30, 2005: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Revenues |
$ |
390,576 |
|
$ |
689 |
|
|
$ |
1,551 |
|
$ |
- |
|
$ |
392,816 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations |
|
34,385 |
|
|
5,089 |
|
|
|
(1,239) |
|
|
- |
|
|
38,235 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Total assets at December 31, 2005 |
$ |
3,074,691 |
|
$ |
139,306 |
|
|
$ |
188,891 |
|
$ |
(38,762) |
|
$ |
3,364,126 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
1Includes assets of ITI and IDACOMM which are presented as assets held for sale. |
|
||||||||||||||||
8. BENEFIT PLANS:
The following table
shows the components of net periodic benefit costs for the three months ended
June 30 (in thousands of dollars):
|
|
Deferred |
Postretirement |
|||||||||||
|
Pension Plan |
Compensation Plan |
Benefits |
|||||||||||
|
2006 |
2005 |
2006 |
2005 |
2006 |
2005 |
||||||||
Service cost |
$ |
3,619 |
$ |
3,282 |
$ |
368 |
$ |
293 |
$ |
376 |
$ |
338 |
||
Interest cost |
|
5,585 |
|
5,282 |
|
582 |
|
537 |
|
862 |
|
774 |
||
Expected return on plan assets |
|
(7,670) |
|
(7,422) |
|
- |
|
- |
|
(630) |
|
(656) |
||
Amortization of net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
obligation at transition |
|
- |
|
(31) |
|
- |
|
77 |
|
510 |
|
510 |
|
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
166 |
|
192 |
|
61 |
|
57 |
|
(134) |
|
(148) |
||
Amortization of net loss |
|
65 |
|
- |
|
211 |
|
173 |
|
219 |
|
(3) |
||
|
Net periodic benefit cost |
$ |
1,765 |
$ |
1,303 |
$ |
1,222 |
$ |
1,137 |
$ |
1,203 |
$ |
815 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table shows
the components of net periodic benefit costs for the six months ended June 30
(in thousands of dollars):
|
|
Deferred |
Postretirement |
||||||||||
|
Pension Plan |
Compensation Plan |
Benefits |
||||||||||
|
2006 |
2005 |
2006 |
2005 |
2006 |
2005 |
|||||||
Service cost |
$ |
7,238 |
$ |
6,564 |
$ |
736 |
$ |
585 |
$ |
752 |
$ |
727 |
|
Interest cost |
|
11,170 |
|
10,563 |
|
1,164 |
|
1,075 |
|
1,724 |
|
1,765 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
(15,340) |
|
(14,844) |
|
- |
|
- |
|
(1,260) |
|
(1,298) |
|
Amortization of net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
obligation at transition |
|
- |
|
(63) |
|
- |
|
155 |
|
1,020 |
|
1,020 |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
332 |
|
385 |
|
122 |
|
114 |
|
(268) |
|
(279) |
|
Amortization of net loss |
|
130 |
|
- |
|
422 |
|
345 |
|
438 |
|
394 |
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost |
$ |
3,530 |
$ |
2,605 |
$ |
2,444 |
$ |
2,274 |
$ |
2,406 |
$ |
2,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IDACORP and IPC have not
contributed and do not expect to contribute to their pension plan in 2006.
9. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION:
IDACORP has three share-based
compensation plans. IDACORP's employee
plans are the 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan (LTICP) and the 1994
Restricted Stock Plan (RSP). These plans
are intended to align employee and shareholder objectives related to IDACORP's
long-term growth. IDACORP also has one
non-employee plan, the Director Stock Plan (DSP). The purpose of the DSP is to increase directors'
stock ownership through stock-based compensation.
The LTICP for officers,
key employees and directors permits the grant of nonqualified stock options,
incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock,
restricted stock units, performance units, performance shares and other
awards. The RSP permits only the grant
of restricted stock or performance-based restricted stock. At June 30, 2006, the maximum number of
shares available under the LTICP and RSP were 1,674,863 and 97,267, respectively. The following table shows the compensation
cost recognized in income and the tax benefits resulting from these plans, as
well as the amounts allocated to IPC for those costs associated with IPC's
employees (in thousands of dollars):
|
IDACORP |
IPC |
||||||||
|
Six months ended |
Six months ended |
||||||||
|
June 30, |
June 30, |
||||||||
|
2006 |
2005 |
2006 |
2005 |
||||||
Compensation cost |
$ |
841 |
$ |
529 |
$ |
477 |
$ |
237 |
||
Income tax benefit |
$ |
329 |
$ |
207 |
$ |
186 |
$ |
93 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
No equity compensation
costs have been capitalized.
Stock awards: Restricted stock awards have vesting periods of up to
four years. Restricted stock awards
entitle the recipients to dividends and voting rights, and unvested shares are
restricted to disposition and subject to forfeiture under certain
circumstances. The fair value of
restricted stock awards is measured based on the market price of the underlying
common stock on the date of grant and charged to compensation expense over the
vesting period based on the number of shares expected to vest.
Performance-based
restricted stock awards have vesting periods of three years. Performance awards entitle the recipients to
voting rights, and unvested shares are restricted to disposition, subject to
forfeiture under certain circumstances, and subject to meeting specific performance
conditions. Based on the attainment of
the performance conditions, the ultimate award can range from zero to 150
percent of the target award. For awards
granted prior to 2006, dividends were paid currently to recipients. Beginning with the 2006 awards, dividends
will be accumulated and paid out only on shares that eventually vest.
The performance goals
for the 2006 awards are independent of each other and equally weighted, and are
based on two metrics, cumulative earnings per share (CEPS) and total
shareholder return (TSR) relative to a peer group. The fair value of the CEPS portion is based
on the market value at the date of grant, reduced by the loss in time-value of
the estimated future dividend payments, using an expected quarterly dividend of
$0.30. The fair value of the TSR portion
is estimated using a statistical model that incorporates the probability of
meeting performance targets based on historical returns relative to the peer
group. Both performance goals are
measured over the three-year vesting period and are charged to compensation
expense over the vesting period based on the number of shares expected to vest.
A summary of the status
of nonvested share awards as of June 30, 2006, and changes during the six
months ended June 30, 2006, is presented below.
IPC share amounts represent the portion of IDACORP amounts related to
IPC employees:
|
IDACORP |
|
IPC |
||||||
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
Weighted- |
||
|
|
|
average |
|
|
|
average |
||
|
|
|
Grant date |
|
|
|
Grant date |
||
|
Shares |
|
Fair value |
|
Shares |
|
Fair value |
||
Nonvested shares at January 1, 2006 |
214,851 |
|
$ |
29.71 |
|
183,569 |
|
$ |
29.75 |
Shares granted |
124,126 |
|
|
25.90 |
|
113,121 |
|
|
25.91 |
Shares forfeited |
(107,733) |
|
|
26.18 |
|
(90,386) |
|
|
26.12 |
Shares vested |
(18,842) |
|
|
30.38 |
|
(18,842) |
|
|
30.38 |
Nonvested shares at June 30, 2006 |
212,402 |
|
$ |
29.21 |
|
187,462 |
|
$ |
29.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At June 30, 2006,
IDACORP had $2.5 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to
nonvested share-based compensation that was expected to vest. IPC's share of this amount was $1.9
million. These costs are expected to be
recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.32 years. IDACORP uses original issue and/or treasury
shares for these awards.
Stock options: Stock option awards are granted with exercise
prices equal to the market value of the stock on the date of grant. The options have a term of 10 years from the
grant date and vest over a five-year period.
Upon adoption of SFAS 123R on January 1, 2006, the fair value of each
option is amortized into compensation expense using graded-vesting. Beginning in 2006, stock options are not a
significant component of share-based compensation awards under the LTICP.
The fair values of all
stock option awards have been estimated as of the date of the grant by applying
a binomial option pricing model. The
application of this model involves assumptions that are judgmental and
sensitive in the determination of compensation expense. The key assumptions used in determining the
fair value of options granted during the six months ended June 30, 2006, were:
Dividend yield, based on current dividend and stock price on grant date |
3.7% |
Expected stock price volatility, based on IDACORP historical volatility |
18% |
Risk-free interest rate based on U.S. Treasury composite rate |
4.92% |
Expected term based on the SEC "simplified" method |
6.50 years |
Stock option activity
during the six months ended June 30, 2006, was as follows:
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|||
|
|
Weighted- |
Average |
Aggregate |
|||
|
Number |
Average |
Remaining |
Intrinsic |
|||
|
of |
Exercise |
Contractual |
Value |
|||
|
Shares |
Price |
Term |
(000s) |
|||
IDACORP |
|
|
|
|
|||
Outstanding at January 1, 2006 |
1,421,914 |
$ |
32.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
9,905 |
|
31.86 |
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
(12,767) |
|
24.35 |
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
(159,840) |
|
28.43 |
|
|
|
|
Expired |
(11,547) |
|
30.18 |
|
|
|
Outstanding at June 30, 2006 |
1,247,665 |
$ |
32.82 |
6.00 |
$ |
4,498 |
|
Exercisable at June 30, 2006 |
902,807 |
$ |
34.15 |
4.42 |
$ |
2,626 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IPC |
|
|
|
|
|||
Outstanding at January 1, 2006 |
1,094,137 |
$ |
32.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
- |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
(12,767) |
|
24.35 |
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
(139,833) |
|
28.50 |
|
|
|
|
Expired |
(2,800) |
|
39.96 |
|
|
|
Outstanding at June 30, 2006 |
938,737 |
$ |
32.64 |
5.87 |
$ |
3,576 |
|
Exercisable at June 30, 2006 |
724,680 |
$ |
33.77 |
4.53 |
$ |
2,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table
presents information about options granted and exercised during the six months
ended June 30 (in thousands of dollars, except for weighted-average amounts):
|
IDACORP |
|
IPC |
||||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||
Weighted-average grant-date fair value |
$ |
9.96 |
|
$ |
8.84 |
|
$ |
- |
|
$ |
8.81 |
Fair value of options vested |
|
1,785 |
|
|
1,562 |
|
|
1,275 |
|
|
1,087 |
Intrinsic value of options exercised |
|
123 |
|
|
- |
|
|
123 |
|
|
- |
Cash received from exercise |
|
311 |
|
|
- |
|
|
311 |
|
|
- |
Tax benefits realized from exercise |
|
48 |
|
|
- |
|
|
48 |
|
|
- |
As of June 30, 2006,
there was $0.8 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to stock
options. These costs are expected to be
recognized over a weighted average period of 2.35 years. IDACORP uses original issue and/or treasury
shares to satisfy exercised options.
10. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS:
In the second quarter of
2006, IDACORP decided to seek buyers for its fuel cell technology subsidiary
ITI and its telecommunications subsidiary IDACOMM. IDACORP had been reviewing strategic
alternatives for ITI and IDACOMM in order to focus on its core utility
business. The planned disposals of these
businesses meets the criteria established for reporting them as assets held for
sale as defined by SFAS 144. SFAS 144
requires that a long-lived asset classified as held for sale be measured at the
lower of its carrying amount or fair value, less costs to sell, and requires
the holder to cease depreciation and amortization. Based on an analysis of the fair value of
each subsidiary, no adjustments to the carrying values were required.
On July 20, 2006,
IDACORP completed the sale of all of the outstanding common stock of ITI to
IdaTech UK Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Investec Group Investments
(UK) Limited. IDACORP expects to record
a gain of $0.24 to $0.26 per diluted share from this transaction in the third
quarter of 2006.
The operating results of
these businesses have been separately classified and reported as discontinued
operations on IDACORP's condensed consolidated statements of income. A summary of the components of losses from
discontinued operations is as follows (in thousands of dollars):
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
||||||||
|
|
June 30, |
|
June 30, |
||||||||
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Revenues |
|
$ |
3,403 |
|
$ |
4,181 |
|
$ |
8,704 |
|
$ |
8,837 |
Operating expenses |
|
|
(7,466) |
|
|
(8,472) |
|
|
(15,447) |
|
|
(16,730) |
Other income (expense) and deductions |
|
|
(25) |
|
|
134 |
|
|
(67) |
|
|
272 |
Pre-tax losses |
|
|
(4,088) |
|
|
(4,157) |
|
|
(6,810) |
|
|
(7,621) |
Income tax benefit |
|
|
1,271 |
|
|
1,015 |
|
|
2,514 |
|
|
1,903 |
Losses from discontinued operations |
|
$ |
(2,817) |
|
$ |
(3,142) |
|
$ |
(4,296) |
|
$ |
(5,718) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The results of
operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 do not include
depreciation expense of approximately $0.2 million that would be recorded if
the related assets were classified as held and used.
The assets and
liabilities of IDACOMM and ITI have been classified as held for sale on IDACORP's
balance sheets at June 30, 2006, and December 31, 2005. A summary of the components of assets and
liabilities held for sale on IDACORP's Consolidated Balance Sheets is as
follows (in thousands of dollars):
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Current assets |
$ |
5,085 |
|
$ |
6,673 |
|
|
Property and investments |
|
19,994 |
|
|
19,848 |
|
|
Other assets |
|
7,072 |
|
|
6,118 |
|
|
|
Total assets |
$ |
32,151 |
|
$ |
32,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Current liabilities |
$ |
3,921 |
|
$ |
5,916 |
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
7,630 |
|
|
10,016 |
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
18 |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
$ |
11,569 |
|
$ |
15,967 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of
Directors and Shareholders of IDACORP, Inc.
Boise, Idaho
We have reviewed the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of IDACORP, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company") as of June 30, 2006, and the related
condensed consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the
three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, and the
condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month periods ended
June 30, 2006 and 2005. These interim
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
We conducted our reviews
in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). A review of
interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical
procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially
less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.
Based on our reviews, we
are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to such
condensed consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
of America.
We have previously
audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of IDACORP,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated
March 6, 2006, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE
LLP
Boise, Idaho
August 7, 2006
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of
Directors and Shareholder of Idaho Power Company
Boise, Idaho
We have reviewed the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet and statement of
capitalization of Idaho Power Company and subsidiary (the "Company")
as of June 30, 2006, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income
and comprehensive income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June
30, 2006 and 2005, and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for
the six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005. These interim financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.
We conducted our reviews
in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). A review of
interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical
procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially
less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.
Based on our reviews, we
are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to such condensed
consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We have previously
audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet and statement
of capitalization of Idaho Power Company and subsidiary as of December 31,
2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated March 6, 2006, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet and statement of
capitalization as of December 31, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material
respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet and statement of
capitalization from which it has been derived.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boise, Idaho
August 7, 2006
ITEM 2.
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
(Dollar amounts and megawatt-hours (MWh) are in
thousands unless otherwise indicated.)
INTRODUCTION:
In Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
(MD&A), the general financial condition and results of operations for
IDACORP, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, IDACORP) and Idaho Power
Company and its subsidiary (collectively, IPC) are discussed.
IDACORP is a holding
company formed in 1998 whose principal operating subsidiary is IPC. IDACORP is subject to the provisions of the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, which provides certain access to
books and records to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and state
utility regulatory commissions and imposes certain record retention and reporting
requirements on IDACORP.
IPC is an electric
utility with a service territory covering approximately 24,000 square miles in
southern Idaho and eastern Oregon. IPC
is regulated by the FERC and the state regulatory commissions of Idaho and
Oregon. IPC is the parent of Idaho
Energy Resources Co., a joint venturer in Bridger Coal Company, which supplies
coal to the Jim Bridger generating plant owned in part by IPC.
At June 30, 2006,
IDACORP's other subsidiaries included:
In the second quarter of
2006, IDACORP management designated the operations of ITI and IDACOMM as assets
held for sale, as defined by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
144. IDACORP's consolidated financial
statements reflect the reclassification of the results of these businesses as
discontinued operations for all periods presented. Discontinued operations are discussed in more
detail in Note 10 to IDACORP's and IPC's Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements and later in the MD&A. On
July 20, 2006, IDACORP completed the sale of all of the outstanding common
stock of ITI to IdaTech UK Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Investec Group
Investments (UK) Limited.
This MD&A should be
read in conjunction with the accompanying condensed consolidated financial
statements. This discussion updates the
MD&A included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2005, and the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2006, and should be read in conjunction with the discussions in those reports.
FORWARD-LOOKING
INFORMATION:
In connection with the
safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(Reform Act), IDACORP and IPC are hereby filing cautionary statements identifying
important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from
those projected in forward-looking statements (as such term is defined in the
Reform Act) made by or on behalf of IDACORP or IPC in this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q, in presentations, in response to questions or otherwise. Any statements that express, or involve
discussions as to expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or
future events or performance (often, but not always, through the use of words
or phrases such as "anticipates," "believes," "estimates,"
"expects," "intends," "plans," "predicts,"
"projects," "may result," "may continue" or
similar expressions) are not statements of historical facts and may be forward-looking. Forward-looking statements involve estimates,
assumptions and uncertainties and are qualified in their entirety by reference
to, and are accompanied by, the following important factors, which are
difficult to predict, contain uncertainties, are beyond IDACORP's or IPC's
control and may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained
in forward-looking statements:
Any forward-looking
statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made. New factors emerge from time to time and it
is not possible for management to predict all such factors, nor can it assess
the impact of any such factor on the business or the extent to which any
factor, or combination of factors, may cause results to differ materially from
those contained in any forward-looking statement.
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW:
Second Quarter 2006
Financial Results
IDACORP's earnings for the quarter
were $20 million, a $10 million increase over the same period in 2005. Diluted earnings per share were $0.47 in the
second quarter of 2006 and $0.22 in the same period of 2005. Improved results at IPC were the key driver of
IDACORP's increase. IPC's earnings
increased from $13 million in 2005 to $22 million in 2006.
IPC's performance is
attributable to much improved hydroelectric generating conditions and increased
sales. After six years of below normal
water conditions, IPC's second quarter 2006 hydroelectric generation was above
normal levels and 56 percent higher than second quarter generation in
2005. Hydroelectric generation
contributed 71 percent of IPC's total system generation, as compared to 55
percent in 2005. This additional
hydroelectric generation reduced net power supply costs, providing a $0.07 per
diluted share benefit quarter-over-quarter.
Irrigation energy sales increased by 64 percent quarter-over-quarter due
to warmer and drier weather. IPC's results
also reflect the benefits of growth in general business customers, warmer
temperatures and rate increases that went into effect in June 2005. Additionally, IPC recorded a $4.7 million
($0.11 per diluted share) after-tax benefit from the sale of excess emission
allowances.
IDACORP's non-regulated
subsidiaries and holding company expenses reduced earnings by five cents per
diluted share, compared to an eight-cent per share reduction in the second
quarter of 2005. In accordance with
interim reporting requirements, the estimated annual effective income tax rate
is used in determining income tax expense.
The results from both periods reflect the effect of intra-period tax
allocations recorded at the holding company and in discontinued operations.
Power Cost Adjustment
On June 1, 2006, IPC implemented its
annual Power Cost Adjustment (PCA), which will result in a $123.5 million
reduction in the rates of Idaho customers.
The reduction in rates comes as a direct benefit of the above-average
snow pack in the mountains upstream of Brownlee Reservoir and lower-than-forecasted
power supply costs in the 2005-2006 PCA year.
In years when water is plentiful and IPC can fully utilize its extensive
hydroelectric system, power production costs are lower and IPC can pass those
benefits to its customers in the form of rate reductions. When water is in short supply as it was in
the past six years, the higher costs of supplying power by other means also are
shared with IPC's customers.
General rate case settlement
On June 1, 2006, IPC implemented a
3.2 percent ($18 million annual) increase to its Idaho retail base rates. IPC
had filed a general rate case with the IPUC in October 2005, and the IPUC
approved a settlement agreement in May 2006.
Base rates primarily reflect IPC's cost of providing electrical service
to its customers, including equipment, vehicles and infrastructure. IPC's overall allowed rate of return in Idaho
increased from 7.85 percent to 8.1 percent.
SO2 emission allowances settlement
As of June 30, 2006,
IPC has sold 78,000 excess SO2 emission allowances for approximately
$81.6 million (before income taxes and expenses) on the open market. After subtracting transaction fees the total
amount of sales proceeds to be allocated to the Idaho jurisdiction is
approximately $76.8 million ($46.8 million, net of tax, assuming a tax rate of
approximately 39 percent). Through
allowance vintage year 2006, IPC has approximately 32,000 excess allowances
remaining.
On May 12, 2006, the
IPUC approved ratemaking treatment of the sales proceeds. The IPUC order allows IPC to retain 10
percent, or approximately $4.7 million net of income taxes, of the Idaho
jurisdiction proceeds as a shareholder benefit.
The remaining 90 percent of the Idaho jurisdiction proceeds ($69.1 million)
plus a carrying charge will be recorded as a customer benefit and included as a
line item in the PCA true up for amortization in PCA rates during the June 1,
2007, through May 31, 2008, PCA rate period.
The carrying charge will be calculated on $42.1 million, the net-of-tax
amount allocable to Idaho jurisdiction customers.
Shareholder Lawsuit
On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho (Judge Edward J. Lodge) issued an Order
adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Williams issued on
September 14, 2005, granting the defendants' (IDACORP and certain of its
officers and directors) motion to dismiss because plaintiffs failed to satisfy
the pleading requirements for loss causation.
However, Judge Lodge modified the Report and Recommendation and ruled
that plaintiffs had until May 1, 2006, to file an amended complaint only as to
the loss causation element. On May 1,
2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on June 16, 2006. The
briefing schedule requires plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to
dismiss to be filed on or before August 14, 2006, and the defendants' response
on or before August 28, 2006. IDACORP
and the other defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against the
allegations. IDACORP cannot, however,
predict the outcome of these matters.
June and July 2006 High Temperatures
IPC's service territory, along with
much of the western United States, experienced above-normal temperatures during
the months of June and July 2006. New
records were set for cooling degree-days, a measure of temperature impact on
customer demand. Due to these above-normal
conditions, a new summer peak of 3,050 MW was first set on June 27, 2006, and
was subsequently surpassed on July 24, 2006 when a new summer peak of 3,084 MW
was recorded. Since June 27, the
previous system peak of 2,983 MW, which was set in 2002, has been exceeded 12
times. IPC was able to meet all of its
load requirements during these periods of increased demand through its system
generation and by increasing the amount of its purchased power. In addition, wildfires are prevalent in the
western United States this summer, including in and around IPC's service
territory. In late July 2006 wildfires
threatened but did not harm two transmission lines near IPC's Hells Canyon
complex.
Idaho Water Management Issues
Power generation at the IPC
hydroelectric power plants on the Snake River is dependent upon the state water
rights held by IPC and the long-term sustainability of the Snake River,
tributary spring flows and the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer that is connected to
the River. IPC continues to participate
in water management issues in Idaho that may affect those water rights and
resources. This includes active
participation in the Snake River Basin Adjudication, a judicial action
initiated in 1987 to determine the nature and extent of water use in the Snake
River Basin, various judicial and administrative proceedings relating to the
conjunctive management of ground and surface water rights, and management and
planning processes intended to reverse declining trends in river, spring, and
aquifer levels and address the long-term water resource needs of the State.
While none of the pending water management issues are expected to impact IPC's
hydroelectric generation in the near term, IPC's ongoing participation in such
issues will help ensure that water remains available over the long-term for use
at IPC's hydropower projects on the Snake River.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING
POLICIES AND ESTIMATES:
IDACORP's and IPC's
discussion and analysis of their financial condition and results of operations
are based upon their condensed consolidated financial statements, which have
been prepared in accordance with GAAP.
The preparation of these financial statements requires IDACORP and IPC
to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets,
liabilities, revenues and expenses and related disclosure of contingent assets
and liabilities. On an ongoing basis,
IDACORP and IPC evaluate these estimates including those estimates related to
rate regulation, benefit costs, contingencies, litigation, impairment of
assets, income taxes, restructuring costs and bad debt. These estimates are based on historical
experience and on other assumptions and factors that are believed to be
reasonable under the circumstances, and are the basis for making judgments
about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily
apparent from other sources. IDACORP and
IPC, based on their ongoing reviews, make adjustments when facts and
circumstances dictate.
IDACORP's and IPC's
critical accounting policies are reviewed by the Audit Committee of the Board
of Directors. These policies are
discussed in more detail in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005, and have not changed materially from that discussion.
RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS:
This section of the
MD&A takes a closer look at the significant factors that affected IDACORP's
and IPC's earnings during the three and six months ended June 30, 2006. In this analysis, the results for 2006 are
compared to the same period in 2005.
The following table
presents the earnings (losses) for IDACORP's segments as well as the holding
company:
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
||||||||
|
June 30, |
|
|
June 30, |
||||||||
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||
Continuing operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IPC - Utility operations |
$ |
21,612 |
|
$ |
12,876 |
|
$ |
46,633 |
|
$ |
34,385 |
|
IDACORP Financial Services |
|
2,069 |
|
|
2,594 |
|
|
4,231 |
|
|
5,089 |
|
Ida-West Energy |
|
1,030 |
|
|
756 |
|
|
1,363 |
|
|
826 |
|
IDACORP Energy |
|
90 |
|
|
(215) |
|
|
(111) |
|
|
(513) |
|
Holding Company |
|
(2,128) |
|
|
(3,418) |
|
|
(2,488) |
|
|
(1,552) |
|
Income from continuing operations |
|
22,673 |
|
|
12,593 |
|
|
49,628 |
|
|
38,235 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations |
|
(2,817) |
|
|
(3,142) |
|
|
(4,296) |
|
|
(5,718) |
|
|
Net income |
$ |
19,856 |
|
$ |
9,451 |
|
$ |
45,332 |
|
$ |
32,517 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common shares outstanding (diluted) |
42,702 |
|
|
42,292 |
|
|
42,642 |
|
42,289 |
|||
Diluted earnings (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations |
$ |
0.53 |
|
$ |
0.30 |
|
$ |
1.16 |
|
$ |
0.91 |
|
Losses from discontinued operations |
$ |
(0.06) |
|
$ |
(0.08) |
|
$ |
(0.10) |
|
$ |
(0.14) |
|
Diluted earnings per share |
$ |
0.47 |
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
$ |
1.06 |
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utility Operations
Operating
environment:
IPC is one of the nation's few
investor-owned utilities with a predominantly hydroelectric generating
base. Because of its reliance on
hydroelectric generation, IPC's generation operations can be significantly
affected by weather conditions. The
availability of hydroelectric power depends on the amount of snow pack in the
mountains upstream of IPC's hydroelectric facilities, springtime snow pack run-off,
rainfall and other weather and stream flow management considerations. During low water years, when stream flows
into IPC's hydroelectric projects are reduced, IPC's hydroelectric generation
is reduced. This results in less
generation from IPC's resource portfolio (hydroelectric, coal-fired and gas-fired)
available for off-system sales and, most likely, an increased use of purchased
power to meet load requirements. Both of
these situations - a reduction in profitable off-system sales and an increased
use of more expensive purchased power - result in increased net power supply
costs. During high water years,
increased off-system sales and the decreased need for more expensive purchased
power reduce net power supply costs.
Operations plans are
developed during the year to provide guidance for generation resource
utilization and energy market activities (off-system sales and power
purchases). The plans incorporate
forecasts for generation unit availability, reservoir storage and stream flows,
gas and coal prices, customer loads, energy market prices and other pertinent inputs. Consideration is given to when to use IPC's
available resources to meet forecast loads and when to transact in the energy
market. The allocation of hydroelectric
generation between heavy-load and light-load hours or calendar periods is
considered in development of the operating plans. This allocation is intended to utilize the
flexibility of the hydroelectric system to shift generation to high value
periods, while operating within the constraints imposed on the system. IPC's energy risk management policy, unit
operating requirements and other obligations provide the framework for the
plans.
The following table
presents IPC's power supply for the three and six months periods ended June 30:
|
|
MWh |
||||||||
|
|
Hydroelectric |
|
Thermal |
|
Total system |
|
Purchased |
|
|
|
|
Generation |
|
Generation |
|
Generation |
|
Power |
|
Total |
Three months ended: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
3,038 |
|
1,215 |
|
4,253 |
|
1,786 |
|
6,039 |
June 30, 2005 |
|
1,942 |
|
1,562 |
|
3,504 |
|
838 |
|
4,342 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2006 |
|
5,866 |
|
2,938 |
|
8,804 |
|
2,703 |
|
11,507 |
June 30, 2005 |
|
3,324 |
|
3,339 |
|
6,663 |
|
1,684 |
|
8,347 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The observed streamflow
data released on August 1, 2006, by the National Weather Service's Northwest
River Forecast Center indicates that Brownlee reservoir inflow for April through
July 2006 was 8.95 million acre-feet (maf), or 142 percent of average. Storage in selected federal reservoirs
upstream of Brownlee as of July 31, 2006, was 116 percent of average. With current and forecasted stream flow
conditions, IPC expects to generate between 8.8 and 9.3 million MWh from its
hydroelectric facilities, compared to 6.2 million MWh in 2005.
Generation from thermal
plants has been lower than 2005 due primarily to an unanticipated outage at the
Boardman plant, of which IPC owns a ten percent interest. The unit returned to service in late
June. The Bennett Mountain combustion
turbine experienced an outage on July 11, 2006, and is expected to return to
service in September 2006. IPC expects
to generate approximately 6.8 million MWh from its thermal facilities in 2006,
compared to 7.3 million MWh in 2005.
IPC's system load peaks
in the summer and winter, with the larger peak demand occurring in the
summer. IPC's record system peak of
3,084 MW occurred on July 24, 2006. IPC
was able to meet system load requirements and off-system sales requirements and
had sufficient system reserves in place.
General business revenue: The following table presents
IPC's general business revenues, MWh sales and average number of customers and
Boise, Idaho weather conditions for the three and six months ended June 30:
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
||||||||||
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||||||
Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Residential |
|
$ |
64,005 |
|
$ |
60,599 |
|
$ |
152,442 |
|
$ |
139,375 |
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
40,511 |
|
|
41,540 |
|
|
83,541 |
|
|
81,432 |
|
|
Industrial |
|
|
27,006 |
|
|
28,101 |
|
|
56,893 |
|
|
55,114 |
|
|
Irrigation |
|
|
27,688 |
|
|
20,343 |
|
|
28,517 |
|
|
21,032 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
159,210 |
|
$ |
150,583 |
|
$ |
321,393 |
|
$ |
296,953 |
MWh |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Residential |
|
|
1,024 |
|
|
955 |
|
|
2,440 |
|
|
2,283 |
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
873 |
|
|
867 |
|
|
1,785 |
|
|
1,754 |
|
|
Industrial |
|
|
845 |
|
|
836 |
|
|
1,721 |
|
|
1,668 |
|
|
Irrigation |
|
|
593 |
|
|
361 |
|
|
607 |
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
3,335 |
|
|
3,019 |
|
|
6,553 |
|
|
6,078 |
Customers (average, in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Residential |
|
|
385,980 |
|
|
371,288 |
|
|
384,494 |
|
|
369,699 |
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
58,701 |
|
|
56,873 |
|
|
58,490 |
|
|
56,674 |
|
|
Industrial |
|
|
132 |
|
|
128 |
|
|
132 |
|
|
127 |
|
|
Irrigation |
|
|
18,106 |
|
|
17,984 |
|
|
18,030 |
|
|
17,888 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
462,919 |
|
|
446,273 |
|
|
461,146 |
|
|
444,388 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Heating degree-days |
|
|
588 |
|
|
715 |
|
|
3,001 |
|
|
3,075 |
||
Cooling degree-days |
|
|
269 |
|
|
108 |
|
|
269 |
|
|
108 |
||
Precipitation (inches) |
|
|
3.83 |
|
|
6.03 |
|
|
8.20 |
|
|
7.80 |
Heating and cooling
degree-days are a common measure used in the utility industry to analyze the
demand for electricity and indicate when a customer would use electricity for
heating and air conditioning. A
degree-day measures how much the average daily temperature varies from 65
degrees. Each degree of temperature
above 65 degrees is counted as one cooling degree-day, and each degree of
temperature below 65 degrees is counted as one heating degree-day.
General business revenue increased $9 million for the quarter, due primarily to:
General business revenues increased $24 million year-to-date, due primarily to:
Off-system sales: Off-system
sales consist primarily of long-term sales contracts and opportunity sales of
surplus system energy. The following
table presents IPC's off-system sales for the three and six months ended June
30:
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
$ |
75,598 |
|
$ |
38,872 |
$ |
179,839 |
|
$ |
71,085 |
MWh sold |
|
2,343 |
|
|
1,037 |
|
4,286 |
|
|
1,682 |
Revenue per MWh |
$ |
32.27 |
|
$ |
37.48 |
$ |
41.95 |
|
$ |
42.26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improved streamflow
conditions increased total system generation and electricity available for
surplus sales. Revenues from higher
sales volumes were moderated by lower prices caused by abundant energy in the
region. Additional sales activities are the
result of conforming to IPC's risk management policy, managing IPC's energy
portfolio to meet customer load, and reacting to changes in market conditions
to minimize net power supply costs.
Other revenues: The following
table presents the components of other revenues for the three and six months
ended June 30:
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
||||||||
|
June 30, |
|
June 30, |
||||||||
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission services and property rental |
$ |
10,313 |
|
$ |
9,657 |
$ |
17,429 |
|
$ |
18,551 |
|
Rate case tax settlement |
|
(1,891) |
|
|
655 |
|
(4,846) |
|
|
3,467 |
|
Irrigation load reduction |
|
(2,207) |
|
|
(1,108) |
|
(5,518) |
|
|
(1,108) |
|
Provision for rate refund |
|
(175) |
|
|
229 |
|
(175) |
|
|
400 |
|
|
Total |
$ |
6,040 |
|
$ |
9,433 |
$ |
6,890 |
|
$ |
21,310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decrease in the
second quarter of 2006 is due primarily to the amortization of previously
accrued revenues from an IPUC order regarding the calculation of IPC's taxes
for purposes of test year income tax expense in the 2003 Idaho general rate
case. From September 2004 to May 2005,
this revenue was being accrued. From
June 2005 to May 2006, it was recovered in rates (and presented in general
business revenue), with a corresponding reduction to other revenues.
Also, from June 2005 to
May 2006, IPC was collecting and recording in general business revenues amounts
related to an irrigation load reduction program. There was an offsetting reduction to other
revenues.
Purchased power: The following
table presents IPC's purchased power for the three and six months ended June
30:
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases |
$ |
74,808 |
|
$ |
36,929 |
$ |
130,733 |
|
$ |
81,007 |
MWh purchased |
|
1,786 |
|
|
838 |
|
2,703 |
|
|
1,684 |
Cost per MWh purchased |
$ |
41.88 |
|
$ |
44.07 |
$ |
48.36 |
|
$ |
48.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early water year
indications suggested continued drought conditions for 2006, which prompted IPC
to make forward purchases in conformance with its risk management policy. Additional purchase activities are the result
of managing IPC's energy portfolio to meet customer load and reacting to
changes in market conditions to minimize net power supply costs.
Fuel expense: The following
table presents IPC's fuel expenses and generation at its thermal generating
plants for the three and six months ended June 30:
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|||||||
|
June 30, |
|
June 30, |
|||||||
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel expense |
$ |
21,954 |
|
$ |
24,369 |
$ |
48,923 |
|
$ |
49,465 |
Thermal MWh generated |
|
1,215 |
|
|
1,562 |
|
2,938 |
|
|
3,339 |
Cost per MWh |
$ |
18.07 |
|
$ |
15.60 |
$ |
16.65 |
|
$ |
14.82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decrease in fuel
expense is due primarily to lower output at IPC's thermal plants, which reduced
expense $5 million, partially offset by a $3 million increase in expense from
higher coal prices and increased rail transportation costs. The increased cost of coal is due to higher
market demand, and the increased rail transportation costs are primarily driven
by increased diesel fuel costs, including an adjustable fuel surcharge.
PCA: PCA expense
represents the effects of IPC's PCA regulatory mechanism and Oregon deferrals
of net power supply costs, which are discussed in more detail below in "REGULATORY
MATTERS - Deferred (Accrued) Net Power Supply Costs."
The significant increase
in hydroelectric production reduced year-to-date net power supply costs (fuel
and purchased power less off-system sales) below the amounts in the annual PCA
forecasts. This resulted in the accrual
of an expense representing amounts that will be returned to customers in
subsequent rate years. As the accrued
expenses are being returned in rates, the deferred balances are amortized.
The following table
presents the components of PCA expense for the three and six months ended June
30:
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
||||||||
|
June 30, |
|
June 30, |
||||||||
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
2005 |
||||
Current year power supply cost accrual (deferral) |
$ |
2,839 |
|
$ |
3,382 |
|
$ |
43,718 |
$ |
(12,544) |
|
Amortization of prior year authorized balances |
|
1,761 |
|
|
9,033 |
|
|
4,349 |
|
20,542 |
|
|
Total power cost adjustment |
$ |
4,600 |
|
$ |
12,415 |
|
$ |
48,067 |
$ |
7,998 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other operating and
maintenance expenses: O&M expenses increased $4 million for the
quarter and $11 million year-to-date, compared to 2005. The primary cause of the second quarter
increase was increased labor expense of approximately $2 million. The year-to-date increase primarily resulted
from a $5 million increase in labor-related expenses, a $3 million increase in
thermal plant expenses and a $2 million increase in electricity transmission
expenses. Total O&M expenses in 2006
are expected to be between $250 and $260 million.
Non-utility
operations
IFS
IFS contributed $2.1 million in the
second quarter of 2006, compared to $2.6 million in the second quarter of
2005. IFS' income is derived principally
from the generation of federal income tax credits and accelerated tax
depreciation benefits related to its investments in affordable housing and
historic rehabilitation developments.
IFS generated $4.6 million of tax credits in the second quarter of 2006
($9.1 million year-to-date) and expects to continue delivering tax benefits at
a level commensurate with the ongoing needs of IDACORP.
Discontinued Operations
In the second quarter of 2006,
IDACORP management designated the operations of ITI and IDACOMM as assets held
for sale, as defined by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
144. The operations of these entities
are presented as discontinued operations in IDACORP's financial statements.
On July 20, 2006,
IDACORP completed the sale of all of the outstanding common stock of ITI to IdaTech
UK Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Investec Group Investments (UK)
Limited. IDACORP expects to record a
gain of $0.24 to $0.26 per diluted share from this transaction in the third
quarter of 2006.
ITI lost $1.4 million in
the second quarter of 2006 and $3.3 million year-to-date, compared to losses of
$2.4 million and $4.5 million for the same time periods in 2005. IDACOMM lost $0.8 million in the second
quarter of 2006 and $0.4 million year-to-date, compared to losses of $0.2
million and $0.4 million for the same time periods in 2005. The results from discontinued operations also
reflect the allocation of intra-period tax allocations.
INCOME TAXES:
Income tax rate
In accordance with interim reporting requirements, IDACORP and IPC use an estimated
annual effective tax rate for computing their provisions for income taxes. IDACORP's effective rate on continuing
operations for the six months ended June 30, 2006, was 23.6 percent, compared
to 8.5 percent for the six months ended June 30, 2005. IPC's effective tax rate for the six months
ended June 30, 2006, was 39.4 percent, compared to 35.4 percent for the six
months ended June 30, 2005. The
differences in estimated annual effective tax rates are primarily due to the
increase in pre-tax earnings at IDACORP and IPC, the loss of the simplified
service cost method tax deduction at IPC, timing and amount of regulatory flow-through
tax adjustments at IPC, and slightly lower tax credits from IFS.
Status of audit
proceedings
As discussed in Note 2 to IDACORP's
and IPC's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) examination of tax years 2001-2003 is ongoing. However, the examination is not complete and
management cannot predict which examined items may be adjusted by the IRS or
the financial impact of such adjustments.
All issues related to this examination could be resolved by the end of
2006, with the possible exception of IPC's capitalized overhead cost method.
IDACORP intends to
vigorously defend its tax positions. It
is possible that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and exposures
relative to current estimates, or material changes in such estimates, could
have a material adverse effect on IDACORP's and IPC's consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Capitalized overhead
costs
As discussed in Note 2 to IDACORP's
and IPC's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, the IRS examination of
IPC's simplified service cost method is ongoing. IPC is actively involved in pursuing
resolution of this matter and is working diligently with the IRS in the
examination process. At this time, IPC
cannot predict the earnings or cash flow impacts that the revenue ruling,
temporary regulations, or additional action by the IRS in this matter may have
on 2006 or prior tax years. However, a
less favorable method could result in a one-time charge to earnings and reduced
cash flow that could be partially offset by carryover tax credits, accelerated
tax depreciation, changes in tax regulations and state regulatory recovery.
IPC is currently
evaluating alternatives for a new uniform capitalization method for 2005 and
subsequent years and expects to change to a new method with the filing of
IDACORP's 2005 federal income tax return in the third quarter of 2006. It is expected that the new method will be
less favorable than the simplified service cost method.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL
RESOURCES:
Operating cash flows
IDACORP's and IPC's operating cash
flows for the six months ended June 30, 2006, were $147 million and $116
million, respectively.
IDACORP's and IPC's
operating cash flows increased $81 million and $47 million, respectively,
compared to 2005. At IPC, favorable
hydroelectric conditions reduced power supply costs significantly, but such
costs were being collected in retail rates and a significant portion will be
refunded through the PCA. Partially
offsetting this increase was a $41 million increase in income tax payments made
by IPC to IDACORP. The increase in
IDACORP's operating cash flows was primarily the result of the increased
collections from customers at IPC, and the collection of $10 million of
accounts receivable and $10 million of margin deposits at IE, offset by a $34
million increase in income tax payments.
In 2006, net cash
provided by operating activities will continue to be driven by IPC, where
general business revenues, sales of excess energy to wholesale customers, and
costs to supply power to general business customers have the greatest impact on
operating cash flows.
Contractual
obligations
There have been no material changes
in contractual obligations, outside of the ordinary course of business, since
December 31, 2005.
Credit ratings
Access to capital markets at a
reasonable cost is determined in large part by credit quality. The following table outlines the current
S&P, Moody's and Fitch ratings of IDACORP's and IPC's securities:
|
S&P |
Moody's |
Fitch |
|||
|
IPC |
IDACORP |
IPC |
IDACORP |
IPC |
IDACORP |
Corporate Credit Rating |
BBB+ |
BBB+ |
Baa 1 |
Baa 2 |
None |
None |
Senior Secured Debt |
A- |
None |
A3 |
None |
A- |
None |
Senior Unsecured Debt |
BBB |
BBB |
Baa 1 |
Baa 2 |
BBB+ |
BBB |
|
(prelim) |
(prelim) |
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Tax-Exempt Debt |
BBB/A-2 |
None |
Baa 1/ |
None |
None |
None |
|
|
|
VMIG-2 |
|
|
|
Commercial Paper |
A-2 |
A-2 |
P-2 |
P-2 |
F-2 |
F-2 |
Credit Facility |
None |
None |
Baa 1 |
Baa 2 |
None |
None |
Rating Outlook |
Negative |
Negative |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
These security ratings
reflect the views of the rating agencies.
An explanation of the significance of these ratings may be obtained from
each rating agency. Such ratings are not
a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities. Any rating can be revised upward or downward
or withdrawn at any time by a rating agency if it decides that the
circumstances warrant the change. Each
rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.
Capital requirements
IDACORP's internal cash generation
after dividends is expected to provide less than the full amount of total
capital requirements for 2006 through 2008.
The contribution from internal cash generation is dependent primarily
upon IPC's cash flows from operations, which are subject to risks and
uncertainties relating to weather and water conditions, and IPC's ability to
obtain rate relief to cover its operating costs.
IDACORP's internally
generated cash after dividends is expected to provide approximately 58 percent
of 2006 capital requirements, where capital requirements are defined as utility
construction expenditures, excluding Allowance for Funds Used During
Construction (AFDC), plus other regulated and non-regulated investments
excluding the sale of ITI. This excludes
mandatory or optional principal payments on debt obligations. IDACORP and IPC expect to continue financing
the utility construction program and other capital requirements with internally
generated funds and externally financed capital.
The current expectation
of approximately 58 percent of 2006 capital requirements is an increase from
the 43 percent projected in IDACORP's and IPC's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.
This increase is primarily due to proceeds received by IE for settling
matters related to the California Refund proceedings, general business
carryforward tax credits and working capital adjustments. These projections
include $28 million in income taxes paid by IPC in the first quarter of 2006 on
the $71 million received from the sale of excess SO2 emission
allowances in 2005. These income tax
payments reduced IDACORP's 2006 forecast for internally generated cash. Excluding the payment of these income taxes, IDACORP's
internally generated cash after dividends would have provided approximately 70
percent of 2006 capital requirements.
Emission allowances are discussed below in "REGULATORY MATTERS -
Emission Allowances."
Utility construction program: Utility construction
expenditures were $101 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006, compared
to $86 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005 due primarily to
increases in transmission and distribution construction. IPC's total construction expenditures are
expected to be $720 million, excluding AFDC, from 2006 through 2008. Variations in the timing and amounts of
capital expenditures will result from regulatory and environmental factors,
load growth and other resource acquisition needs, including relicensing
expenditures.
Other capital requirements: Most of
IDACORP's non-regulated capital expenditures relate to IFS' investments in
affordable housing developments that help lower IDACORP's income tax liability.
Financing Programs
Credit facilities: IDACORP has a $150 million five-year credit
agreement with various lenders (IDACORP Facility), which is used for general
corporate purposes and commercial paper back-up and will terminate on March 31,
2010. The IDACORP Facility provides for
the issuance of loans and standby letters of credit not to exceed the aggregate
principal amount of $150 million, provided that the aggregate amount of the
standby letters of credit may not exceed $75 million.
IPC has a $200 million
five-year credit agreement with various lenders (IPC Facility), which is used
for general corporate purposes and commercial paper back-up and will terminate
on March 31, 2010. The IPC Facility
provides for the issuance of loans and standby letters of credit not to exceed
the aggregate principal amount of $200 million, provided that the aggregate
amount of the standby letters of credit may not exceed $100 million.
At June 30, 2006, no
loans were outstanding under the IDACORP Facility or IPC Facility.
The IDACORP Facility and
the IPC Facility both contain a covenant requiring each company to maintain a
leverage ratio of consolidated indebtedness to consolidated total
capitalization of no more than 65 percent as of the end of each fiscal
quarter. At June 30, 2006, the leverage
ratios for both IDACORP and IPC were 51 percent. At June 30, 2006, IDACORP was in compliance
with all other covenants of the IDACORP Facility and IPC was in compliance with
all other covenants of the IPC Facility.
See "LIQUIDITY AND
CAPITAL RESOURCES - Financing Programs - Credit Facilities" in IDACORP's
and IPC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, for
a discussion of the terms of the IDACORP Facility and the IPC Facility.
Long-term
financings: In April 2005, with the goal of adding additional
common equity to its capital structure, IDACORP began using original issue
common stock in its Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan, rather than
purchasing this stock on the open market.
Beginning in August 2005, IDACORP also began using original issue common
stock for its 401(k) plan. In the second
quarter of 2006, IDACORP issued 63,141 shares.
LEGAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Legal and Other Proceedings
Reference is made to
IDACORP's and IPC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
for a discussion of all material pending legal proceedings to which IDACORP and
IPC and their subsidiaries are parties.
The following discussion provides a summary of material developments
that occurred in those proceedings during the period covered by this report and
of any new material proceedings instituted during the period covered by this
report.
Shareholder Lawsuit:
On March 29, 2006, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho (Judge Edward J. Lodge) issued an
Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Williams
issued on September 14, 2005, granting the defendants, (IDACORP and certain of
its officers and directors) motion to dismiss because plaintiffs failed to
satisfy the pleading requirements for loss causation. However, Judge Lodge modified the Report and
Recommendation and ruled that plaintiffs had until May 1, 2006, to file an
amended complaint only as to the loss causation element. On May 1, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. The defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 16, 2006. The briefing schedule requires plaintiffs'
response to defendants' motion to dismiss to be filed on or before August 14,
2006, and the defendants' response on or before August 28, 2006. IDACORP and the other defendants intend to
defend themselves vigorously against the allegations. IDACORP cannot, however, predict the outcome
of these matters.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Grays Harbor County,
Washington: On July 25, 2006, the case was dismissed with
prejudice by the Honorable Robert H. Whaley, sitting by designation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, pursuant to an agreed
resolution of the matter between Grays Harbor and IDACORP, IPC and IE. The settlement did not have a material
adverse effect on IDACORP's consolidated financial position, results of
operation or cash flows.
Port of Seattle:
On March 7, 2006, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard argument on the Port of Seattle's
appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's
dismissal of its complaint with prejudice.
On March 30, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the Port of
Seattle's appeal and affirming the dismissal of the entire case. The dismissal of the case, with prejudice,
became final on June 28, 2006, when the Port of Seattle elected not to file a
certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wah Chang: Following the October 18, 2005 consolidation of Wah
Chang's appeal of the dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit with an identical order in Wah Chang v. Duke Energy Trading and
Marketing, IDACORP, IPC and IE filed an answering brief on November 30, 2005.
Wah Chang filed its reply brief on January 6, 2006. Wah Chang's appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has now been fully briefed; however, no date has
yet been set for oral argument. IDACORP,
IPC and IE intend to vigorously defend their position in this proceeding and
believe this matter will not have a material adverse effect on their
consolidated financial positions, results of operations or cash flows.
City of Tacoma:
The City of Tacoma's March 10,
2005, appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the
dismissal of the case by Judge Whaley has been fully briefed; however, no date
has yet been set for oral argument.
IDACORP, IPC and IE intend to vigorously defend their position in this
proceeding and believe this matter will not have a material adverse effect on
their consolidated financial positions, results of operations or cash flows.
Wholesale
Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II: In April 2002, several subsidiaries of Reliant
Energy, Inc. (Reliant) and Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) filed cross-complaints
against IE and IPC and numerous other participants in the California energy
market. The cross-complaints sought
indemnification for any liability that may arise from original complaints filed
against Reliant and Duke with respect to charges of unlawful and unfair
business practices in the California
energy markets under California law. On
November 9, 2005, both Duke and Reliant submitted to the Court stipulations
with IE and IPC to conditionally dismiss, with prejudice, the cross-complaints,
subject to reinstatement if proposed settlements between Duke and Reliant and
the plaintiffs of the underlying actions were not approved by the Court. Neither IE nor IPC paid any amount to Duke or
to Reliant to obtain these dismissals.
On December 14, 2005, the Court granted final approval of the Duke
settlement with the plaintiffs. The
Court's order granting final approval of the Duke settlement became final on
March 14, 2006, as the Court's docket does not indicate that any appeal was
filed. On January 6, 2006, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Reliant settlement with the plaintiffs in these
cases. On March 30, 2006, oppositions
and objections to the Reliant settlement were filed by certain parties under
the Eggers case caption, including by the States of Montana and
Idaho. Neither IPC nor IE is a party to
the Eggers case, which seeks to
recover damages on behalf of consumers in western states other than
California. A hearing on final approval of the Reliant settlement was held on April
28, 2006. At the hearing, the Court
ruled that the California class settlement would receive final approval
contingent on a satisfactory showing that the notice to those class members was
adequate. As for the Eggers case, the Court set a briefing
schedule to provide evidence and oral argument regarding the State of Montana's
treatment by its class representative and Montana's connection to the
California energy market.
On May 30, 2006, the Court signed and approved the Judgment, Final Order,
and Decree Granting Final Approval to the
Reliant settlement. The Court also
signed and approved the Order Granting Reliant's Motion for Good Faith
Settlement Determination. The order approving
the Reliant settlement became final on July 31, 2006. On July 14, 2006, the Court held a separate hearing
to consider approval of the settlement of the Eggers action, and thereafter signed and approved the Judgment, Final Order and Decree Granting
Final Approval to the Class Action Settlement in the Eggers case.
IE and IPC will continue
to vigorously defend their position in this proceeding until all appeal periods
have expired and believe this matter will not have a material adverse effect on
their consolidated financial positions, results of operations or cash flows.
Western Energy Proceedings at the FERC
1. California
Refund
On February 17, 2006, IE and IPC
jointly filed with the California Parties (Pacific Gas & Electric Company,
San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, the
California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight
Board, the California Department of Water Resources and the California Attorney
General) an Offer of Settlement at the FERC.
Non-settling parties had until March 9, 2005, to elect to become an
additional settling party. The majority
of non-settling parties chose to opt out of the Settlement. After consideration of comments, on May 22,
2006, the FERC approved the settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, IE and IPC assigned $24.25 million of
the rights to accounts receivable from the California Independent System
Operator (CalISO) and California Power Exchange (CalPX) to the California
Parties to pay into an escrow account for refunds to settling parties. Amounts from that escrow not used for
settling parties and $1.5 million of the remaining IE and IPC receivables which
are to be retained by the CalPX are available to fund, at least partially,
payment of the claims of any non-settling parties if they prevail in the
remaining litigation of this matter. Any
excess funds remaining at the conclusion of the case are to be returned to
IDACORP. Approximately $10.25 million of
the remaining IE and IPC receivables was paid to IE and IPC under the Settlement.
On May 22, 2006, the
FERC issued an order approving, with certain conditions, the Offer of
Settlement. On June 21, 2006, the Port
of Seattle, Washington filed a request for rehearing of the FERC order
approving the Settlement. On July 10,
2006, IDACORP and the California Parties filed a response to Port of Seattle's
request for rehearing. On July 21, 2006,
the FERC issued a tolling order in response to the Port of Seattle's request
for rehearing, giving the FERC additional time to respond to the request. While IDACORP believes that this Settlement
resolves all issues it may have related to the California Refund proceedings,
it is possible that additional issues that affect IDACORP may arise in the
future.
For some time the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals held in abeyance consolidated petitions for review (in
excess of 100) of FERC orders related to the California Refund proceeding. On September 21, 2004, the Ninth Circuit
convened case management proceedings on these petitions and on October 22,
2004, severed a subset of issues for briefing related to: (1) which parties are
subject to the FERC's refund jurisdiction under section 201(f) of the Federal
Power Act; (2) the temporal scope of refunds under section 206 of the Federal
Power Act; and (3) which categories of transaction are subject to refunds. Oral argument was held on April 12-13,
2005. On September 6, 2005, the Ninth
Circuit issued a decision on the jurisdictional issues concluding that the FERC
lacked refund authority over wholesale electric energy sales made by
governmental entities and non-public utilities.
On August 2, 2006 the Ninth Circuit issued its decision on the
appropriate temporal reach and the type of transactions subject to FERC refund
orders and concluded, among other things, that all transactions at issue in the
case that occurred within or as a result of the Cal PX and the Cal ISO were the
proper subject of refund proceedings; refused to expand the refund proceedings
into the bilateral markets including transactions with the California
Department of Water Resources; approved the refund effective date as October 2,
2000, but also required FERC to consider whether refunds, including possibly
market-wide refunds, should be required for an earlier time due to claims that
some market participants had violated governing tariff obligations (although
the decision did not specify when that time would start, the California Parties
generally had sought further refunds starting May 1, 2000); and effectively
expanded the scope of the refund proceeding to transactions within the CalPX
and CalISO markets outside the 24-hour spot market and energy exchange
transactions.
IDACORP believes that
these decisions should have no material effect on IDACORP under the terms of
the IDACORP Settlement with the California Parties approved by the FERC on May
22, 2006.
2. California
Power Exchange Chargeback
Based upon the Settlement filed with
the FERC on February 17, 2006, between the California Parties and IE and IPC
and discussed above in "California Refund", the California Parties
supported a motion filed by IE and IPC with the FERC seeking an Order Directing
Return of Chargeback Amounts currently held by the CalPX totaling $2.27
million. In the May 22, 2006, Order
approving the Settlement, the FERC granted the IE and IPC motion for return of
chargeback funds held by the CalPX. On
June 1, 2006, IE received approximately $2.5 million from the CalPX
representing the return of $2.27 million in chargeback funds plus interest.
3. Market
Manipulation
Pursuant to the Offer of Settlement
filed with the FERC on February 17, 2006, between the California Parties and IE
and IPC and discussed above in "California Refund" the requests for
rehearing of the California Parties and other settling parties of the FERC's
approval of an earlier settlement with the FERC staff regarding allegations of "gaming"
are deemed to be withdrawn. On May 22,
2006, the FERC issued an order approving the February 17, 2006, Offer of
Settlement. If the FERC denies the few
remaining requests for rehearing filed by non-settling parties of the FERC's
approval of the "gaming" case settlement, the effect would be to
terminate the FERC investigations as to IPC and IE regarding bidding behavior,
physical withholding of power and "gaming" without finding of
wrongdoing.
4. Pacific
Northwest Refund
On September 24, 2001, the FERC
Administrative Law Judge submitted recommendations and findings to the FERC
finding that prices in the Pacific Northwest during the December 25, 2000, through
June 20, 2001, time period should be governed by the Mobile-Sierra standard of
public interest rather than the just and reasonable standard, that the Pacific
Northwest spot markets were competitive and that no refunds should be
allowed. The FERC approved these
recommendations on June 25, 2003, and multiple parties then appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. IE and
IPC were parties in the FERC proceeding and are participating in the
appeal. Briefing on the appeal was
completed on May 25, 2005; however, no date has been set for oral
argument. The Settlement approved by the
FERC on May 22, 2006 resolves all claims the California Parties have against IE
and IPC in the Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding. The settlement with Grays Harbor resolves all
claims Grays Harbor has against IE and IPC in this proceeding. IE and IPC are unable to predict the outcome
as to all other parties in this proceeding.
Other Legal Proceedings: IDACORP,
IPC and/or IE are involved in lawsuits and legal proceedings in addition to
those discussed above and in Note 5 to IDACORP's Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements. The companies
believe they have meritorious defenses to all lawsuits and legal proceedings
where they have been named as defendants.
Resolution of any of these matters will take time, and the companies
cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings. The companies believe that their reserves are
adequate for these matters.
Idaho Water
Management Issues
Idaho has recently experienced six
consecutive years of below normal precipitation and stream flows. These conditions have exacerbated a
developing water shortage in the state, which is manifested by a number of
water issues including declining Snake River base flows and declining levels in
the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, a large underground aquifer that has been
estimated to hold between 200 - 300 maf of water. These issues are of interest to IPC because
of their potential impacts on generation at IPC's hydroelectric projects. With respect to base flows, observed records
suggest that the base flows in the Snake River, particularly between IPC's Twin
Falls and Swan Falls projects, have been in decline for several decades. The yearly average flow measured below Swan
Falls declined at an average rate of 43 cubic feet per second (cfs) per year
during the period 1961-2003, and between Twin Falls and Lower Salmon Falls,
which significantly contribute to base flow, declined at a rate of
approximately 27 cfs per year over the same period. Low flow in the Snake River near Hagerman,
Idaho continued to be observed during 2005, where several river gauges in that
area recorded the lowest January - March Snake River flows since the early 1960's.
As a result of these
declines in river flows, in 2003 several surface water users filed delivery
calls with the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), demanding that it
manage ground water withdrawals pursuant to the prior appropriation doctrine of
"first in time is first in right" and curtail junior ground water
rights that are depleting the aquifer and affecting flows to senior surface
water rights. These delivery calls have
resulted in several administrative actions before the IDWR and judicial actions
before the State District Court in Ada and Gooding counties in Idaho
challenging the constitutionality of state regulations used by the IDWR to
conjunctively administer ground and surface water rights. One such action, filed in January 2005,
involves seven surface water irrigation entities from above Milner Dam that
submitted a delivery call letter to the Director of the IDWR requesting that
the Director administer and deliver their senior natural flow and storage water
rights pursuant to Idaho law. The
irrigation entities contend that existing data reflects that senior surface
water rights above Milner Dam have been reduced by approximately 600,000 acre-feet,
a 30 percent reduction, over the past six years, due in part to junior
groundwater pumping from the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, and that these reductions
have resulted in cumulative shortages in natural flow and storage water accrual
in American Falls Reservoir, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reservoir that
supplies a portion of their senior water rights. The Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc.,
an Idaho non-profit corporation organized to promote and represent the
interests of groundwater users, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the owner
of American Falls Reservoir, petitioned to intervene in the delivery call
action. Both petitions were granted.
Since IPC holds water
rights that are dependent on the Snake River, spring flows and the overall
condition of the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, IPC continues to participate in
actions, as necessary, to protect its water rights. One such action relates to the
constitutionality of the Conjunctive Management Rules (CMR) that were developed
by the IDWR to administer connected ground and surface water rights. In August 2005, the surface water irrigation
entities that initiated the delivery call filed an action against the IDWR in
the state district court in Gooding County, Idaho for a declaratory judgment
regarding the validity and constitutionality of the CMR. IPC intervened in the action as a
plaintiff/intervenor. The Idaho Ground
Water Appropriators intervened as a defendant.
In October 2005, the plaintiffs in the case filed a motion for summary
judgment, contending that the CMR were unconstitutional and violated the
doctrine of prior appropriation as applied in Idaho. After briefing and argument, on June 2, 2006,
the district court issued a memorandum decision granting summary judgment to
the plaintiffs and holding that the CMR are unconstitutional because the rules
failed to protect senior water rights from injury by junior water right
diversions. On July 11, 2006, the IDWR
appealed the court's order to the Idaho Supreme Court and subsequently filed a
motion with the district court asking the court to stay the effect of its order
until the conclusion of the appeal.
IPC, together with other
interested water users and state interests, also continues to explore and
encourage the development of a long-term management plan that will protect the
aquifer and the river from further depletion. One management option being explored is
aquifer recharge, or using surface water supplies to increase ground water
supplies by allowing the water to percolate into the aquifer in porous
locations. Under certain circumstances
aquifer recharge may impact senior water rights, including water rights held by
IPC for hydropower purposes, and therefore conflict with state law. For that reason, IPC continues to participate
in the processes that are considering solutions, such as aquifer recharge, to
the conflict between ground and surface water interests in an effort to protect
its existing hydroelectric generation water rights.
In February 2006, at the
request of senior surface water interests, IPC entered into discussions with
the State of Idaho, through the Office of the Governor, and senior surface
water interests to explore opportunities for engaging in some limited aquifer
recharge in 2006, provided any adverse impact to IPC's hydropower generation
and its customers is adequately addressed.
These discussions led to a proposal to implement a recharge pilot
program in 2006. However, before that
proposal could be finalized, on March 17, 2006, the House of Representatives of
the State of Idaho passed House Bill 800, which proposed to repeal certain
provisions of the Idaho Code that governed the use of natural water flow to
recharge the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer and would have subordinated certain
hydropower water rights held by IPC to aquifer recharge. The introduction of House Bill 800
effectively concluded the discussions between IPC, senior surface water
interests and the Governor's Office to implement a pilot recharge project.
IPC strongly opposed
House Bill 800 because, if it had become law, IPC's hydroelectric generation
could have been reduced and IPC would have to rely on more expensive generation
or purchased power to meet customers' needs.
This would have resulted in higher costs to IPC's customers. On March 30, 2006, the Senate defeated House
Bill 800 by a vote of 21 to 14.
At the conclusion of the
legislative session, the Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 136
directing the Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB) to develop a comprehensive
aquifer management plan for the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA) and to
receive public input regarding the goals, objectives, and methods of management
for the ESPA from affected water right holders, cities, counties, the general
public and state and federal agencies. The
IWRB initiated a public process for the development of an aquifer management
plan in June 2006. IPC is participating in that process. The IWRB is expected to report to the Idaho
Legislature in 2007 on the progress of the planning effort.
On April 11, 2006, IPC
and the State of Idaho entered into a stipulation agreement regarding two water
right permits. The permits allow for
limited aquifer recharge and are held by the IWRB. The two water right permits were issued in
the early 1980's, prior to the 1984 Swan Falls Agreement.
IPC entered into the
Swan Falls Agreement with the Governor and Attorney General of Idaho in October
1984 to resolve litigation relating to IPC's water rights at the Swan Falls
project. In the early 1980's, IPC filed
an action identifying approximately 7,500 water licenses and permits that had
the potential to adversely impact IPC's hydropower water rights at the Swan
Falls project. The Swan Falls Agreement
resolved that litigation. One provision
of the Swan Falls Agreement provided that the action against the 7,500 water
licenses and permits would be dismissed with prejudice and that IPC's
hydropower water rights on the middle Snake River would be subordinate to those
water rights dismissed.
In the stipulation, IPC
and the state recognized that the two water right permits referred to above
were named in the action brought by IPC and were subject to the Swan Falls
Agreement and that IPC's water rights are therefore subordinate to these water
right permits.
IPC cannot determine the financial impact of the
stipulation upon IPC and its customers until such time, if ever, that recharge
programs under the two water permits are established, but IPC believes that the
potential maximum impact in a median water year may be approximately $30
million.
Clean Air
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued SO2 allowances, as defined in the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990, based on coal consumption during established baseline
years. IPC currently has more than a
sufficient amount of SO2 allowances to provide compliance for
emissions attributable to IPC at all three of its jointly-owned coal-fired
facilities and both of its natural gas-fired facilities.
The Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) will cap emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides in 28
eastern states and the District of Columbia.
The CAIR does not impose any restrictions on emissions from any IPC
facilities, and therefore, IPC does not foresee any adverse effects upon its
operations.
The Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR) will limit mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power
plants and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program that will permanently
cap utility mercury emissions in two phases.
Mercury emission allocations have been set at the state level, but the
states have not allocated the allowances to individual utilities. States have until November 17, 2006, to
submit to the EPA mercury plans establishing mercury emission standards and
allowances for the power plants within their jurisdictions. IPC is actively monitoring developments on
state mercury plans in Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and Oregon. It is anticipated that this rule may require
additional emission controls and expenses at IPC's jointly-owned coal-fired
facilities, although impacts on future plant operations, operating costs and
generating capacity are not known at this time.
Regional Haze studies
are being performed on the IPC jointly-owned thermal plants to determine the
effect on Class I wilderness areas. IPC
is monitoring the results of these studies and issues surrounding regional
haze. It is anticipated that Regional Haze
rules may require additional emission controls and expenses at IPC's jointly-owned
coal-fired facilities, although impacts on future plant operations, operating
costs and generating capacity are not known at this time.
The possible enactment
of national climate change legislation is something that IPC continues to
monitor and evaluate. New climate change
bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives during
March 2006. On April 4, 2006, the U.S.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources sponsored a day-long hearing
on the subject of global climate change.
National climate change legislation, if enacted, could impose
significant costs on IPC for compliance with restrictions on carbon emissions.
REGULATORY MATTERS:
General Rate Cases
Idaho: On May 12, 2006, the IPUC
issued an order approving a settlement of IPC's general rate case filed in
October 2005. The order approves an
average increase of 3.2 percent in base rates, or $18 million in revenues,
effective June 1, 2006.
On February 27, 2006,
IPC, the IPUC staff and representatives of customer groups had filed a
stipulation with the IPUC that became the basis for the final order.
IPC's original filing
had asked for an annual increase to its Idaho retail base rates of $44 million,
a 7.8 percent average increase. The rate
case filing was made with six months of actual operating expenses and six
months of projected expenses. The actual
increase in rates was lower than the requested amount due to three
factors: (1) 2005 actual expenses were
significantly less than those forecasted; (2) the overall rate of return agreed
to was 8.1 percent compared to the 8.42 percent IPC requested (no specific
return on equity was determined); and (3) net power supply costs were kept at
levels currently existing in rates.
Oregon: On
September 21, 2004, IPC filed an application with the OPUC to increase general
rates an average of 17.5 percent or approximately $4.4 million annually. A partial settlement resolved most issues in
a manner consistent with the Idaho result.
The most significant issue in this proceeding was the appropriate
quantification of net power supply expenses for purposes of setting rates. The OPUC staff proposed that net power supply
expenses for IPC be set at a negative number - meaning that IPC should be able
to sell enough surplus energy to pay for all fuel and purchased power expenses
and still have revenue left over to offset other costs. The bulk of IPC's rebuttal was directed at
this position. A hearing was conducted
on May 23, 2005. The OPUC issued its
order in July 2005 authorizing an increase of $0.6 million in annual revenues
for an average of 2.37 percent. The OPUC
adopted the OPUC staff's argument for the negative net power supply costs, thus
reducing IPC's initial rate request of $4.4 million by $2.4 million with this
one adjustment.
On September 26, 2005,
IPC filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of Marion County, Oregon asking
the court to reverse the portion of the OPUC's general rate case order related
to the determination of net power supply costs.
On March 30, 2006, IPC filed its opening brief. Oral argument was held in June 2006. The parties are currently preparing briefs on
the subject of market prices.
Deferred (Accrued)
Net Power Supply Costs
IPC's deferred (accrued) net power
supply costs consisted of the following (in thousands of dollars):
|
June 30, |
|
December 31, |
|||
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|||
Idaho PCA current year: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferral (accrual) for the 2006-2007 rate year |
$ |
- |
|
$ |
3,684 |
|
Deferral (accrual) for the 2007-2008 rate year * |
|
(47,064) |
|
|
- |
Idaho PCA true-up awaiting recovery (refund): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorized May 2005 |
|
- |
|
|
28,567 |
|
Authorized May 2006 |
|
(19,265) |
|
|
- |
Oregon deferral: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001 costs |
|
7,637 |
|
|
8,411 |
|
2005 costs |
|
2,790 |
|
|
2,880 |
|
Total deferral (accrual) |
$ |
(55,902) |
|
$ |
43,542 |
* includes a $42.1 million credit for SO2 emission allowance sales allocated to customers |
Idaho: IPC has a PCA
mechanism that provides for annual adjustments to the rates charged to its
Idaho retail customers. These
adjustments are based on forecasts of net power supply costs, which are fuel
and purchased power less off-system sales, and the true-up of the prior year's
forecast. During the year, 90 percent of
the difference between the actual and forecasted costs is deferred with
interest. The ending balance of this
deferral, called the true-up for the current year's portion and the true-up of
the true-up for the prior years' unrecovered portion, is then included in the
calculation of the next year's PCA.
The true-up of the true-up
portion of the PCA provides a tracking of the collection or the refund of true-up
amounts. Each month, the collection or
the refund of the true-up amount is quantified based upon the true-up portion
of the PCA rate and the consumption of energy by customers. At the end of the PCA year, the total collection
or refund is compared to the previously determined amount to be collected or
refunded. Any difference between
authorized amounts and amounts actually collected or refunded are then
reflected in the following PCA year, which becomes the true-up of the true-up. Over time, the actual collection or refund of
authorized true-up dollars matches the amounts authorized.
On May 25, 2006, the
IPUC approved IPC's 2006-2007 PCA filing with an effective date of June 1,
2006. The filing reduced the PCA
component of customers' rates from the existing level, which was recovering
$76.7 million above then-existing base rates, to a level that is $46.8 million
below those base rates, a decrease of approximately $123.5 million.
On April 13, 2006, IPC filed testimony requesting
review of one component of the PCA referred to as the load growth adjustment
rate, as agreed to in the stipulation of the parties settling the 2005 general
rate case. The load growth adjustment
rate provides a reduction to power supply expenses for PCA purposes when loads
grow from levels included in IPC's base rates.
IPC maintains that this reduction to expenses should be equal to the
relative increase in revenues received as a result of load growth. Other parties to the proceeding are scheduled
to file testimony by September 15, 2006.
A hearing is scheduled for October 30, 2006. The dollar impact of load growth adjustment
rates is significant and increasing, based on continuing growth within IPC's
territory. Any increase in the load
growth adjustment rate as a result of this proceeding would magnify the impact.
On June 1, 2005, IPC implemented the 2005-2006 PCA,
which held the PCA component of customers' rates at the existing level
recovering $71 million above base rates.
By IPUC order, the PCA included $12 million in lost revenues and $2
million in related interest resulting from IPC's Irrigation Load Reduction
Program that was in place in 2001. The
PCA deferred recovery of approximately $28 million of power supply costs, or
4.75 percent, for one year to help mitigate the impacts of other rate
increases. The $28 million was included
in the 2006-2007 PCA filing, and IPC earned a two percent carrying charge on
the balance.
Oregon: On April 28,
2006, IPC filed for an accounting order with the OPUC to defer net power supply
costs for the period of May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007, in anticipation of
higher than "normal" power supply expenses. "Normal" power supply expenses were
set at a negative number (meaning that under normal water conditions IPC should
be able to sell enough surplus energy to pay for all fuel and purchased power
expenses and still have revenue left over to offset other costs) in the 2003
Oregon general rate case, which IPC is contesting. The forecasted system net power supply
expenses included in this deferral filing were $64 million, which is $65.9
million higher than the normalized power supply expenses established in the
Oregon general rate case. IPC requested
authorization to defer an estimated $3.3 million, the Oregon jurisdictional
share of the $65.9 million. IPC also
requested that it earn its Oregon authorized rate of return on the deferred
balance and recover the amount through rates in future years, as approved by
the OPUC. A settlement conference is
scheduled for August 17, 2006.
On March 2, 2005, IPC
filed for an accounting order with the OPUC to defer net power supply costs for
the period of March 2, 2005, through February 28, 2006, in anticipation of
continued low water conditions. The
forecasted net power supply costs included in this filing were $169 million, of
which $3 million related to the Oregon jurisdiction. IPC proposed to use the same methodology for
this deferral filing that was accepted in 2002 for Oregon's share of IPC's 2001
net power supply expenses. On July 1,
2005, IPC, the OPUC staff, and the Citizen's Utility Board entered into a
stipulation requesting that the OPUC accept IPC's proposed methodology. Under this methodology, IPC will earn its
Oregon authorized rate of return on the deferred balance and will recover the
amount through rates in future years, as approved by the OPUC. The OPUC issued Order 05-870 on July 28,
2005, approving the stipulation. On
April 19, 2006, IPC filed a request for review and acknowledgement of its deferred
net power supply costs for the period of March 2, 2005 through February 28,
2006. The deferral amount was quantified
by IPC to be $2.7 million. On June 14,
2006, a settlement conference was held; however, settlement is pending further
staff review.
The timing of future
recovery of Oregon power supply cost deferrals is subject to an Oregon statute
that specifically limits rate amortizations of deferred costs to six percent
per year. IPC is currently amortizing through
rates power supply costs associated with the western energy situation. Full recovery of the 2001 deferral is not
expected until 2009, at which time the rate amortization of the 2005-2006
deferral could begin. A 2006-2007
deferral would have to be amortized sequentially following the full recovery of
the authorized 2005-2006 deferral.
Emission Allowances
In June 2005, IPC filed
applications with the IPUC and OPUC requesting blanket authorization for the
sale of excess SO2 emission allowances and an accounting order. The IPUC issued Order 29852 on August 22,
2005, authorizing the sale and interim accounting treatment. The OPUC issued Order 05-983 on September 13,
2005, stating that IPC did not need a blanket order to sell emission allowances
and approved the interim accounting treatment.
As of June 30, 2006, IPC
has sold 78,000 SO2 emission allowances for approximately $81.6
million (before income taxes and expenses) on the open market. After subtracting transaction fees, the total
amount of sales proceeds to be allocated to the Idaho jurisdiction is
approximately $76.8 million ($46.8 million net of tax, assuming a tax rate of
approximately 39 percent). Through
allowance vintage year 2006, IPC has approximately 32,000 excess allowances
remaining.
Pursuant to the IPUC
order, the IPUC staff held several workshops and settlement discussions. On May 12, 2006, the IPUC approved a
stipulation filed in April 2006 by IPC on behalf of several parties. The stipulation allows IPC to retain ten
percent, or approximately $4.7 million after tax, of the emission allowance net
proceeds as a shareholder benefit. The
remaining 90 percent of the sales proceeds ($69.1 million) plus a carrying
charge will be recorded as a customer benefit and included as a line-item in
the PCA true-up. The carrying charge
will be calculated on $42.1 million, the net-of-tax amount allocable to Idaho
jurisdiction customers. This customer
benefit is included in IPC's PCA calculations as a credit to the PCA true-up
balance and will be reflected in PCA rates during the June 1, 2007 through May
31, 2008 PCA rate year.
There is no current OPUC
proceeding with respect to SO2 emission allowances, and IPC cannot
predict the outcome of any future OPUC ratemaking proceeding relating to this
issue.
Fixed Cost Adjustment Mechanism (FCA)
On January 27, 2006, IPC filed with the IPUC for authority to implement a rate
adjustment mechanism that would adjust rates downward or upward to recover
fixed costs independent from the volume of IPC's energy sales. This filing is a continuation of a 2004 case
that was opened to investigate the financial disincentives to investment in
energy efficiency by IPC. This true-up
mechanism would be applicable only to residential and small general service
customers. The first FCA rate change
under this proposal would occur on June 1, 2007, coincident with IPC's PCA rate
change. The accounting for the FCA will
be separate from the PCA. As part of the
filing, IPC proposes a three percent cap on any rate increase to be applied at
the discretion of the IPUC.
On March 6, 2006, the
IPUC reviewed IPC's decoupling proposal and acknowledged the intent of IPC and
the IPUC Staff to initiate and engage in settlement discussions. The first workshop was held on May 17,
2006. Additional analysis is currently
being completed prior to the next workshop which is not yet scheduled.
FERC Proceedings
On March 24, 2006, IPC submitted a
revised Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) filing with the FERC requesting
an increase in transmission rates. The
purpose of the filing is to implement formula rates for the IPC OATT in order
to more accurately reflect the costs that IPC incurs in providing transmission
service. In the filing IPC proposed to
move from a fixed rate to a formula rate, which allows for transmission rates to
be updated each year based on FERC Form 1 data.
The formula rate request includes a rate of return on equity of 11.25
percent. The proposed rates would
produce an annual revenue increase of approximately $13 million based on 2004
test year data. On May 31, 2006, the
FERC accepted IPC's rates, permitting them to become effective on June 1, 2006,
subject to refund based on the outcome of settlement negotiations. The new rates are based on 2005 Form 1 data. IPC
has implemented these new rates and established a reserve for possible refund
to customers. A settlement conference
was held June 28, 2006. The intervenors
presented an issues list which addressed small rate making adjustments, a
reduction to the requested rate of return on equity, the development of an
extensive annual audit plan, and concerns related to the treatment of legacy
contracts. A second settlement
conference is scheduled for August 16, 2006.
IPC is preparing to respond to data requests. A number of parties have intervened in the
case. IPC is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter.
Integrated Resource
Plan
Preparation of the 2006 Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP) is in progress. The
initial meeting of the IRP Advisory Council was held on October 20, 2005, and
subsequent meetings have continued on a regular (typically monthly) basis. In the 2006 IRP, the planning period will
change from a ten-year forecast to a 20-year forecast. The 2006 IRP was originally scheduled to be
filed in June 2006; however, the IPUC granted IPC's request for a 90-day
extension of time to file its 2006 IRP until September 29, 2006.
Peaking
Resource: On January 9, 2006, IPC selected a Siemens-Westinghouse
combustion turbine project in response to a request for proposal for
construction of a natural gas-fired power plant, as identified in the 2004
IRP. The plant will be located at the
Evander Andrews Power Complex near Mountain Home, Idaho and is planned to be
online prior to the summer of 2008. The
unit will provide approximately 166 MW of capacity to help meet summer load
peaks and can provide greater capacity during cooler times of the year. On April 14, 2006, IPC filed an application
for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity with the IPUC with a commitment
estimate of $60 million. The application also
requests confirmation that IPC can expect to include in rate base the prudent
capital costs for the project and recover prudent fuel costs through its PCA
mechanism. The application is based on a signed contract
with Siemens Power Generation, Inc. to construct the plant valued at $50
million. The contract is contingent upon
approval of the application by the IPUC.
The parties are involved in the discovery stage of the application
process. Technical hearings are
scheduled for November 20-21, 2006, and IPC anticipates a conclusion before
year end. Related transmission
interconnection and line upgrades will be constructed by IPC at an estimated
cost of $23 million.
PURPA Wind Projects: As
of June 2006, three wind projects, with a total nameplate capacity of 19.9 MW,
are selling energy to IPC under approved PURPA agreements. An additional thirteen wind projects,
comprising 186.9 MW of wind generation, for a total of 206.8 MW, have approved
PURPA agreements and are scheduled to come online during 2006 and 2007.
Wind RFP: IPC
has selected Horizon Wind Energy as the successful bidder in IPC's RFP for
renewable wind-powered generation issued on January 13, 2005. Horizon's proposal is for a 66-MW project
located near La Grande, Oregon, and is expected to be online by the end of
2007. The northeast Oregon location for
the Horizon project is different from the existing and proposed PURPA wind
projects, which are located along the Snake River in southern Idaho, and should
complement the energy from the existing wind projects.
Relicensing of
Hydroelectric Projects
IPC, like other utilities that
operate nonfederal hydroelectric projects on qualified waterways, obtains
licenses for its hydroelectric projects from the FERC. These licenses last for 30 to 50 years
depending on the size, complexity, and cost of the project. IPC is actively pursuing the relicensing of
the Hells Canyon Complex and Swan Falls projects, a process that may continue
for the next ten to fifteen years.
Middle Snake project licenses were issued in 2004; however, as discussed
below, a legal proceeding contesting the licenses is underway.
Hells Canyon Complex:
The most significant ongoing relicensing
effort is the Hells Canyon Complex, which provides approximately two-thirds of
IPC's hydroelectric generating capacity and 40 percent of its total generating
capacity. The current license for the
Hells Canyon Complex expired at the end of July 2005. Until the new multi-year license is issued,
IPC will operate the project under an annual license issued by the FERC. IPC developed the license application for the
Hells Canyon Complex through a collaborative process involving representatives
of state and federal agencies and business, environmental, tribal, customer,
local government and local landowner interests.
The license application was filed in July 2003 and accepted by the FERC
for filing in December 2003.
On October 28, 2005, the
FERC issued its Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis, which requires the
federal and state agencies, Native American tribes and other participants in
the relicensing process to file preliminary comments, recommendations, terms,
conditions and prescriptions under the FPA, the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Energy Policy Act and other applicable
federal laws. NEPA requires that the
FERC independently evaluate the environmental effects of relicensing the Hells
Canyon Complex as proposed under the final license application (the proposed
action) and also consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Consistent with the requirements of NEPA, the
FERC Staff will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Hells
Canyon project, which the FERC will use to determine whether, and under what
conditions, to issue a new license for the project. The EIS will describe and evaluate the
probable effects, if any, of the proposed action and the other alternatives
considered. Section 241 of the Energy
Policy Act modifies the existing hydroelectric relicensing process under the
FPA and requires federal resource agencies with authority to impose mandatory
conditions on licenses under Sections 4(e) or 18 of the FPA (conditions that
the FERC must include in the license) to provide license applicants, and other
parties to the licensing process, with evidentiary hearings on disputed issues
of material fact related to proposed conditions. It also requires that such agencies accept
more cost effective alternative conditions proposed by license applicants, or
other parties, provided that the proposed alternative conditions will be no
less protective of the resource or the reservation than the original condition
recommended by the agency.
The federal and state
agencies, Native American tribes and other interested parties filed their
preliminary comments, recommendations, terms, conditions and prescriptions with
the FERC on January 26, 2006. Consistent
with the provisions of the FPA, IPC filed reply comments to these filings on
April 11, 2006. Federal agencies with
mandatory conditioning authority under sections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA also
filed their preliminary terms and conditions under those sections with the FERC
on January 26, 2006. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005, and the interim final rules issued on November 17, 2005, to
implement the Act, require IPC, within 30 days of the agency's filing of their
preliminary terms and conditions with the FERC, to file requests for
evidentiary hearings on disputed issues of material fact relied upon by the
federal agency for support of any term or condition and also file any proposed
alternative conditions. On February 27,
2006, IPC filed requests for hearing on Section 4(e) conditions filed by the
Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
Department of Agriculture through the U. S. Forest Service (USFS). IPC also
filed proposed alternative conditions with the agencies. The hearing requests related to travel and
access management, law enforcement and emergency services, and recreation and
land management conditions proposed by the BLM, and sediment supply and sandbar
maintenance and restoration, wildlife habitat mitigation and management,
noxious weed control, recreation resource management, and cultural resource
management conditions filed by the USFS. Each of the agencies responded to the
hearing requests and referred the requests to the hearings division within the
respective agencies for assignment to an administrative law judge (ALJ). Hearings were subsequently set before a
Department of Interior ALJ for June 12, 2006, on the requests for hearing on
the BLM conditions and a Department of Agriculture ALJ for June 19, 2006, on
the USFS requests for hearing. While IPC was preparing for the evidentiary
hearings, IPC continued to engage in discussions with the respective agencies
regarding possible settlements.
Through these
discussions, IPC was able to resolve the disputed issues associated with the
pending hearing requests. On May 10, 2006, IPC and the USFS filed a stipulation
with the Department of Agriculture ALJ, and revised preliminary terms and
conditions with the FERC, resolving all issues associated with the pending USFS
hearing requests except for the issues associated with the USFS condition
relating to sediment supply and sandbar maintenance. These issues remained
subject to hearing on June 19, 2006. On
May 15, 2006, IPC and the BLM filed a stipulation with the Department of
Interior ALJ and revised preliminary terms and conditions with the FERC
resolving all issues associated with the pending BLM hearing requests. Through
subsequent settlement discussions with the USFS, IPC resolved all disputed
issues associated with the hearing request on the USFS condition relating to
sediment supply and sandbar maintenance.
All of these hearing
requests were resolved through stipulations between IPC and the USFS and BLM,
respectively, providing for the withdrawal of IPC's requests for hearing and
the filing of revised preliminary terms and conditions with the FERC with
provisions that were acceptable to IPC.
The FERC will now
consider all of the comments, recommendations, terms, conditions and
prescriptions submitted by the parties and IPC, as well as the final license
application and supporting studies and materials, under the provisions of the
FPA and NEPA. On June 7, 2006, the FERC issued an updated schedule for the
relicensing process, indicating that it intended to issue a draft EIS on July 31,
2006, hold meetings on the draft EIS in late August and early September 2006
and issue a final EIS by February 26, 2007.
The FERC will include those conditions in the final EIS, and in the new license,
that the FERC determines are necessary and required to protect, mitigate and
enhance those resources affected by the operation and management of the
project, including any mandatory conditions or prescriptions proposed under
Sections 4(e) or 18 of the FPA.
On July 28, 2006, the
FERC released the draft EIS. Official notice of its release was published in
the Federal Register on August 4, 2006. Comments
are to be filed with the FERC by October 2, 2006. The draft EIS is prepared by the FERC staff,
pursuant to NEPA and applicable federal regulations, to inform the FERC
Commissioners, the public, state and federal agencies and the tribes about the
potential adverse and beneficial environmental effects of licensing of the
project as proposed by the IPC in its license application and provide a review
of other reasonable alternatives or measures that might be included in a
license for the project. Based upon the draft EIS, the subsequent comments
received, the license application and other material in the FERC record, the
FERC Commissioners will decide whether to license the HCC and what conditions
to include in the license to address project effects. IPC is in the process of
reviewing the draft EIS and will prepare comments for filing with the FERC.
Because this is a draft EIS, containing only FERC staff conclusions, it cannot
be relied upon to accurately predict the outcome of the relicensing process. IPC's preliminary review of the draft EIS,
however, indicates that the FERC staffs' conclusions with regard to the effects
of the project and the measures necessary to address those effects are in many
respects consistent with the license application filed by IPC.
At June 30, 2006, $82
million of Hells Canyon Complex relicensing costs was included in construction
work in progress. The relicensing costs
are recorded and held in construction work in progress until a new multi-year
license is issued by the FERC, at which time the charges are transferred to
electric plant in service. Relicensing
costs and costs related to a new license, as discussed above, will be submitted
to regulators for recovery through the ratemaking process.
Swan Falls Project: The license
for the Swan Falls hydroelectric project expires in 2010. On March 10, 2005, IPC issued a Formal
Consultation Package with agencies, Native American tribes and the public
regarding the relicensing of the Swan Falls project. IPC is in the process of compiling information
and performing studies in preparation for filing an application for a new
license with the FERC in 2008.
At June 30, 2006, $2
million of Swan Falls project relicensing costs were included in construction
work in progress. The relicensing costs
are recorded and held in construction work in progress until a new multi-year
license is issued by the FERC, at which time the charges are transferred to
electric plant in service. Relicensing
costs and costs related to a new license will be submitted to regulators for
recovery through the ratemaking process.
Middle Snake River
Projects: IPC's middle Snake River projects consist of
the Bliss, Upper Salmon Falls, Lower Salmon Falls, Shoshone Falls and CJ Strike
projects. On August 4, 2004, IPC
received the FERC license orders for each of the middle Snake River
projects. On September 2, 2004, two
conservation groups, American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United, filed petitions
for rehearing of the orders issuing the licenses for the middle Snake River
projects. These petitions ask the FERC
to vacate the licensing orders and request a determination from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service that the middle Snake River projects jeopardize the listed
snail species. On October 4, 2004, the
FERC issued an Order Granting Rehearing for Further Consideration to provide
additional time to consider the matters raised by the rehearing requests. On March 4, 2005, the FERC issued an order
denying the conservation groups' rehearing request. On April 28, 2005, American Rivers and Idaho
Rivers United appealed this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. IPC filed a motion to intervene
in the appeal and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a motion to be
designated a respondent-intervenor. On
June 15, 2005, the court granted these motions.
By order dated October 4, 2005, the court extended the briefing schedule
in the appeal. Pursuant to the extended
schedule, American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United filed their briefs with the
court on October 14, 2005 and the FERC filed its brief on December 16,
2005. IPC's and Fish and Wildlife's
briefs were filed on January 27, 2006.
American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United filed a reply brief and
supplemental record on February 28, 2006.
Oral argument on the appeal was held on June 8, 2006. On July 12, 2006 the Ninth Circuit issued a
memorandum decision denying the conservation groups' appeal.
Shoshone Falls Expansion
IPC has developed a License Amendment
Application to upgrade the Shoshone Falls hydroelectric project from 12 MW to
62.5 MW. Earlier this year, the draft
application was distributed to involved parties for comments. The comment period is now closed and few
comments were received. IPC has
responded to those comments. IPC will
submit the final License Amendment Application to the FERC in August 2006 and
the application will move through the FERC's normal evaluation process.
Regional Transmission
Organization
In December 1999, the FERC, in Order
No. 2000, encouraged all companies with transmission assets to form regional
transmission organizations (RTOs). In
response, several northwest utilities, including IPC, attempted formation of an
RTO called RTO West, which eventually evolved into Grid West, a transmission
management entity that would not necessarily become an RTO.
By September 2005, the
Grid West technical design was complete and utilities began the process to commit the necessary funding to
transfer corporate control to a new independent governing board and provide for
continued development. Subsequently, two major funding
entities, the Bonneville Power Administration and the British Columbia
Transmission Corporation, declared they were
unable to commit to the developmental
funding. In March 2006, additional utilities withdrew support and it became
apparent that Grid West would not succeed even with a very limited scope. On April 11, 2006, the Grid West board voted
to prepare to dissolve the corporation.
IPC spent funds
supporting the development of Grid West.
Funding of this effort took two forms.
First, funds were loaned to Grid West for the purpose of meeting its
developmental expenses. The total
accumulated loan through the second
quarter of 2006 was
approximately $1.1 million. IPC no
longer expects this loan to be repaid by Grid West. Second, IPC incurred incremental internal
costs from participating in the developmental effort, which are mostly related
to incremental travel and legal consultation.
Prior to 2005, IPC accumulated these costs in a deferred expense
account, which totaledapproximately
$2.3 million. IPC no longer expects these deferred expenses
to be recovered by repayment through a Grid West tariff. IPC's accumulation of Grid West development
costs in a deferred expense account is consistent with a 2004 accounting order
that IPC requested and received from the FERC.
In April 2006, IPC began the first step in an effort to pursue recovery of the Grid West development costs through retail rates. IPC filed requests with both the IPUC and
OPUC for accounting orders addressing the deferral of costs related to the
development of Grid West. The filings
request that the IPUC and OPUC confirm that it is proper for IPC to transfer
the costs to a regulatory assets account for possible amortization and recovery
in future rates and IPC plans to file additional requests to begin to amortize
and collect the development costs through rates.
On June 29, 2006, the IPUC determined that the case would be processed
under modified procedure where a formal hearing is not expected. IPC is currently responding to the IPUC Staff's
audit requests. Comments on the case are
due to the IPUC by August 14, 2006.
A June 16, 2006 OPUC Staff analysis contended that the OPUC has the
authority to grant the IPC application for deferred accounting. On July 10, 2006, IPC concurred with the
analysis. IPC filed reply comments on
July 28, 2006.
If IPC is unsuccessful with either the IPUC or OPUC or with the FERC,
some or all of the $3.4 million will be expensed.
OTHER MATTERS:
Adopted Accounting
Pronouncements
Effective
January 1, 2006, IDACORP and IPC adopted Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), "Share-Based
Payment," (SFAS 123R) using the modified prospective application
method. Prior to adopting SFAS 123R, the
companies accounted for stock-based employee compensation under the recognition
and measurement principles of Accounting Principles Board Opinion 25, "Accounting
for Stock Issued to Employees," and related interpretations.
From 2003 through 2005,
total compensation expense recorded for these plans was less than $1 million
annually. The Companies did not modify
outstanding share options prior to the adoption of SFAS 123R, and the fair
value estimation model for options did not differ significantly.
Since 2001, the Companies
have granted a mix of performance restricted stock, time-vesting restricted
stock and stock options. In 2006, the
Companies granted cumulative earnings per share- and total shareholder return-based
performance shares, and time-vesting restricted stock and granted only a
minimal amount of stock options. The
adoption of SFAS 123R did not have a material effect on the Companies'
financial statements, and, based on current levels of awards, is not expected
to have a material effect in the future.
New Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 1 to IDACORP's and IPC's
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of recently issued
accounting pronouncements.
ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES
ABOUT MARKET RISK
IDACORP and IPC are
exposed to market risks, including changes in interest rates, changes in
commodity prices, credit risk and equity price risk. The following discussion summarizes these
risks and the financial instruments, derivative instruments and derivative
commodity instruments sensitive to changes in interest rates, commodity prices
and equity prices that were held at June 30, 2006.
Interest Rate Risk
IDACORP and IPC manage interest
expense and short- and long-term liquidity through a combination of fixed rate
and variable rate debt. Generally, the
amount of each type of debt is managed through market issuance, but interest
rate swap and cap agreements with highly rated financial institutions may be
used to achieve the desired combination.
Variable Rate Debt: As of June 30,
2006, IDACORP and IPC had $117 million and $84 million, respectively, in
floating rate debt, net of temporary investments. Assuming no change in either company's
financial structure, if variable interest rates were to average one percentage
point higher than the average rate on June 30, 2006, interest expense for the
year ending December 31, 2006, would increase and pre-tax earnings would
decrease by approximately $1 million for both IDACORP and IPC.
Fixed Rate Debt: As
of June 30, 2006, IDACORP and IPC had outstanding fixed rate debt of $913
million and $865 million, respectively.
The fair market value of this debt was $876 million and $829 million,
respectively. These instruments are
fixed rate, and therefore do not expose IDACORP or IPC to a loss in earnings
due to changes in market interest rates.
However, the fair value of these instruments would increase by
approximately $72 million for IDACORP and $71 million for IPC if interest rates
were to decline by one percentage point from their June 30, 2006 levels.
Commodity Price Risk
Utility: IPC's commodity price risk has not changed
materially from that reported in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2005.
Credit Risk
Utility: IPC's credit risk has not changed materially
from that reported in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005.
Energy: As part of the
sale of its forward book of electricity trading contracts, IE had entered into
an Indemnity Agreement with Sempra Energy Trading guaranteeing the performance
of one of the counterparties through 2009.
The maximum amount payable by IE under the Indemnity Agreement was $20
million. During the second quarter this
guarantee terminated and IE was refunded all outstanding margin deposits.
Equity Price Risk
IDACORP's and IPC's equity price risk
has not changed materially from that reported in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2005.
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Disclosure controls
and procedures:
IDACORP:
The Chief Executive Officer and the
Chief Financial Officer of IDACORP, based on their evaluation of IDACORP's
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e))
as of June 30, 2006, have concluded that IDACORP's disclosure controls and
procedures are effective.
IPC:
The Chief Executive Officer and the
Chief Financial Officer of IPC, based on their evaluation of IPC's disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) as of June
30, 2006, have concluded that IPC's disclosure controls and procedures are
effective.
Changes in internal
control over financial reporting:
There have been no
changes in IDACORP's or IPC's internal control over financial reporting during
the quarter ended June 30, 2006, that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, IDACORP's or IPC's internal control
over financial reporting.
PART II - OTHER
INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Reference is made to
Note 5 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q.
ITEM 1A. RISK
FACTORS
The Risk Factors
included in IDACORP's and IPC's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005 have not changed materially.
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND
USE OF PROCEEDS
Restrictions on
Dividends:
A covenant under the IDACORP and IPC
Credit Facilities requires IDACORP and IPC to maintain leverage ratios of
consolidated indebtedness to consolidated total capitalization of no more than
65 percent at the end of each fiscal quarter.
See "MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS - LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES - Financing
Programs - Credit Facilities." IPC's
ability to pay dividends on its common stock held by IDACORP and IDACORP's
ability to pay dividends on its common stock are limited to the extent payment
of such dividends would cause their leverage ratios to exceed 65 percent. At June 30, 2006, the leverage ratios for
both IDACORP and IPC were 51 percent.
IPC's articles of incorporation contain restrictions on the payment of
dividends on its common stock if preferred stock dividends are in arrears. IPC has no preferred stock outstanding.
Issuer Purchases of
Equity Securities:
IDACORP, Inc. Common
Stock
|
|
|
|
|
(d) Maximum Number |
||
|
|
|
|
(c) Total Number of |
(or Approximate |
||
|
(a) Total |
|
|
Shares Purchased |
Dollar Value) of |
||
|
Number of |
|
(b) Average |
as Part of Publicly |
Shares that May Yet |
||
|
Shares |
|
Price Paid |
Announced Plans or |
Be Purchased Under |
||
Period |
Purchased1 |
|
per Share |
Programs |
the Plans or Programs |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 1 - April 30, 2006 |
2,655 |
|
$ |
33.63 |
- |
- |
|
May 1 - May 31, 2006 |
- |
|
|
- |
- |
- |
|
June 1 - June 30, 2006 |
3,404 |
|
$ |
34.29 |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
6,059 |
|
$ |
34.00 |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1These shares were withheld for taxes upon vesting of restricted stock. |
|||||||
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY
HOLDERS
IDACORP, Inc.:
(a) |
|
|
Regular annual meeting of IDACORP, Inc.'s shareholders, held May 18, 2006, in Boise, Idaho. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
(b) |
|
|
Directors elected at the meeting for a three-year term: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Gary G. Michael |
|
Jan B. Packwood |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Peter S. O'Neill |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Continuing Directors: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Rotchford L. Barker |
|
Richard G. Reiten |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
J. LaMont Keen |
|
Joan H. Smith |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Jack K. Lemley |
|
Robert A. Tinstman |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Jon H. Miller |
|
Thomas J. Wilford |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
(c) |
1) |
|
To elect three Director Nominees: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Name |
|
For |
|
Withheld |
|
Total Voted |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
Gary G. Michael |
|
34,816,131 |
|
1,457,932 |
|
42,790,242 |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
Peter S. O'Neill |
|
35,287,853 |
|
986,210 |
|
42,790,242 |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
Jan B. Packwood |
|
35,281,339 |
|
992,724 |
|
42,790,242 |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
2) |
|
To ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the registered public accounting firm for the |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
fiscal year ending December 31, 2006: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Class of Stock |
|
For |
|
Against |
|
Abstain |
|
Total Voted |
||||||||||
|
|
|
Common |
|
35,599,651 |
|
424,709 |
|
249,701 |
|
42,790,242 |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
*Previously Filed and Incorporated Herein by Reference
*2 |
Agreement and Plan of Exchange between IDACORP, Inc., and IPC dated as of February 2, 1998. File number 333-48031, Form S-4, filed on 3/16/98, as Exhibit 2. |
|
|
|
|
*3(a) |
Restated Articles of Incorporation of IPC as filed with the Secretary of State of Idaho on June 30, 1989. File number 33-00440, Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-3, filed on 6/30/89, as Exhibit 4(a)(xiii). |
|
|
|
|
*3(a)(i) |
Statement of Resolution Establishing Terms of Flexible Auction Series A, Serial Preferred Stock, Without Par Value (cumulative stated value of $100,000 per share) of IPC, as filed with the Secretary of State of Idaho on November 5, 1991. File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 4(a)(ii). |
|
|
|
|
*3(a)(ii) |
Statement of Resolution Establishing Terms of 7.07% Serial Preferred Stock, Without Par Value (cumulative stated value of $100 per share) of IPC, as filed with the Secretary of State of Idaho on June 30, 1993. File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 4(a)(iii). |
|
|
|
|
*3(a)(iii) |
Articles of Amendment to Restated Articles of Incorporation of IPC, as amended, as filed with the Secretary of State of Idaho on January 21, 2005. File number 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 3.3. |
|
|
|
|
*3(b) |
Amended Bylaws of IPC, amended on January 20, 2005, and presently in effect. File number 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 3.2. |
|
|
|
|
*3(c) |
Articles of Share Exchange, as filed with the Secretary of State of Idaho on September 29, 1998. File number 33-56071-99, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8, filed on 10/1/98, as Exhibit 3(d). |
|
|
|
|
*3(d) |
Articles of Incorporation of IDACORP, Inc. File number 333-64737, Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3, filed on 11/4/98, as Exhibit 3.1. |
|
|
|
|
*3(d)(i) |
Articles of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation of IDACORP, Inc. as filed with the Secretary of State of Idaho on March 9, 1998. File number 333-64737, Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3, filed on 11/4/98, as Exhibit 3.2. |
|
|
|
|
*3(d)(ii) |
Articles of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation of IDACORP, Inc. creating A Series Preferred Stock, without par value, as filed with the Secretary of State of Idaho on September 17, 1998. File number 333-00139-99, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3, filed on 9/22/98, as Exhibit 3(b). |
|
|
|
|
*3(e) |
Amended Bylaws of IDACORP, Inc., amended on January 20, 2005, and presently in effect. File number 1-14456, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 3.1. |
|
|
|
|
*4(a)(i) |
Mortgage and Deed of Trust, dated as of October 1, 1937, between IPC and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company) and R. G. Page, as Trustees. File number 2-3413, as Exhibit B-2. |
|
|
|
|
*4(a)(ii) |
IPC Supplemental Indentures to Mortgage and Deed of Trust: |
|
|
|
|
|
File number 1-MD, as Exhibit B-2-a, First, July 1, 1939 |
|
|
File number 2-5395, as Exhibit 7-a-3, Second, November 15, 1943 |
|
|
File number 2-7237, as Exhibit 7-a-4, Third, February 1, 1947 |
|
|
File number 2-7502, as Exhibit 7-a-5, Fourth, May 1, 1948 |
|
|
File number 2-8398, as Exhibit 7-a-6, Fifth, November 1, 1949 |
|
|
File number 2-8973, as Exhibit 7-a-7, Sixth, October 1, 1951 |
|
|
File number 2-12941, as Exhibit 2-C-8, Seventh, January 1, 1957 |
|
|
File number 2-13688, as Exhibit 4-J, Eighth, July 15, 1957 |
|
|
File number 2-13689, as Exhibit 4-K, Ninth, November 15, 1957 |
|
|
File number 2-14245, as Exhibit 4-L, Tenth, April 1, 1958 |
|
|
File number 2-14366, as Exhibit 2-L, Eleventh, October 15, 1958 |
|
|
File number 2-14935, as Exhibit 4-N, Twelfth, May 15, 1959 |
|
|
File number 2-18976, as Exhibit 4-O, Thirteenth, November 15, 1960 |
|
|
File number 2-18977, as Exhibit 4-Q, Fourteenth, November 1, 1961 |
|
|
File number 2-22988, as Exhibit 4-B-16, Fifteenth, September 15, 1964 |
|
|
File number 2-24578, as Exhibit 4-B-17, Sixteenth, April 1, 1966 |
|
|
File number 2-25479, as Exhibit 4-B-18, Seventeenth, October 1, 1966 |
|
|
File number 2-45260, as Exhibit 2(c), Eighteenth, September 1, 1972 |
|
|
File number 2-49854, as Exhibit 2(c), Nineteenth, January 15, 1974 |
|
|
File number 2-51722, as Exhibit 2(c)(i), Twentieth, August 1, 1974 |
|
|
File number 2-51722, as Exhibit 2(c)(ii), Twenty-first, October 15, 1974 |
|
|
File number 2-57374, as Exhibit 2(c), Twenty-second, November 15, 1976 |
|
|
File number 2-62035, as Exhibit 2(c), Twenty-third, August 15, 1978 |
|
|
File number 33-34222, as Exhibit 4(d)(iii), Twenty-fourth, September 1, 1979 |
|
|
File number 33-34222, as Exhibit 4(d)(iv), Twenty-fifth, November 1, 1981 |
|
|
File number 33-34222, as Exhibit 4(d)(v), Twenty-sixth, May 1, 1982 |
|
|
File number 33-34222, as Exhibit 4(d)(vi), Twenty-seventh, May 1, 1986 |
|
|
File number 33-00440, as Exhibit 4(c)(iv), Twenty-eighth, June 30, 1989 |
|
|
File number 33-34222, as Exhibit 4(d)(vii), Twenty-ninth, January 1, 1990 |
|
|
File number 33-65720, as Exhibit 4(d)(iii), Thirtieth, January 1, 1991 |
|
|
File number 33-65720, as Exhibit 4(d)(iv), Thirty-first, August 15, 1991 |
|
|
File number 33-65720, as Exhibit 4(d)(v), Thirty-second, March 15, 1992 |
|
|
File number 33-65720, as Exhibit 4(d)(vi), Thirty-third, April 1, 1993 |
|
|
File number 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 12/20/93, as Exhibit 4, Thirty-fourth, December 1, 1993 |
|
|
File number 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 11/21/00, as Exhibit 4, Thirty-fifth, November 1, 2000 |
|
|
File number 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 10/1/01, as Exhibit 4, Thirty-sixth, October 1, 2001 |
|
|
File number 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 4/16/03, as Exhibit 4, Thirty-seventh, April 1, 2003 |
|
|
File number 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 6/30/03, filed on 8/7/03, as Exhibit 4(a)(iii), Thirty-eighth, May 15, 2003 |
|
|
File number 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 9/30/03, filed on 11/6/03, as Exhibit 4(a)(iii), Thirty-ninth, October 1, 2003 |
|
|
File number 1-3198, Form 8-K filed 5/10/05, as Exhibit 4, Fortieth, May 1, 2005. |
|
|
|
|
*4(b) |
Instruments relating to IPC American Falls bond guarantee (see Exhibit 10(c)). File number 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 6/30/00, filed on 8/4/00, as Exhibit 4(b). |
|
|
|
|
*4(c)(i) |
Agreement of IPC to furnish certain debt instruments. File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 4(f). |
|
|
|
|
*4(c)(ii) |
Agreement of IDACORP, Inc. to furnish certain debt instruments. File number 1-14465, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 9/30/03, filed on 11/6/03, as Exhibit 4(c)(ii). |
|
|
|
|
*4(d) |
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 10, 1989, between Idaho Power Company, a Maine Corporation, and Idaho Power Migrating Corporation. Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-3, File number 33-00440, filed on 6/30/89, as Exhibit 2(a)(iii). |
|
|
|
|
*4(e) |
Rights Agreement, dated as of September 10, 1998, between IDACORP, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as successor to The Bank of New York, as Rights Agent. File number 1-14465, Form 8-K, filed on 9/15/98, as Exhibit 4. |
|
|
|
|
*4(f) |
Indenture for Senior Debt Securities dated as of February 1, 2001, between IDACORP, Inc. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company), as trustee. File number 1-14465, Form 8-K, filed on 2/28/01, as Exhibit 4.1. |
|
|
|
|
*4(g) |
First Supplemental Indenture dated as of February 1, 2001 to Indenture for Senior Debt Securities dated as of February 1, 2001 between IDACORP, Inc. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company), as trustee. File number 1-14465, Form 8-K, filed on 2/28/01, as Exhibit 4.2. |
|
|
|
|
*4(h) |
Indenture for Debt Securities dated as of August 1, 2001 between Idaho Power Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company), as trustee. File number 333-67748, Form S-3, filed on 8/16/01, as Exhibit 4.13. |
|
|
|
|
*10(a) |
Agreements, dated September 22, 1969, between IPC and Pacific Power & Light Company relating to the operation, construction and ownership of the Jim Bridger Project. File number 2-49584, as Exhibit 5(b). |
|
|
|
|
*10(a)(i) |
Amendment, dated February 1, 1974, relating to operation agreement filed as Exhibit 10(a). File number 2-51762, as Exhibit 5(c). |
|
|
|
|
*10(b) |
Agreement, dated as of October 11, 1973, between IPC and Pacific Power & Light Company. File number 2-49584, as Exhibit 5(c). |
|
|
|
|
*10(c) |
Guaranty Agreement, dated April 11, 2000, between IPC and Bank One Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee, relating to $19,885,000 American Falls Replacement Dam Refinancing Bonds of the American Falls Reservoir District, Idaho. File number 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 6/30/00, filed on 8/4/00, as Exhibit 10(c). |
|
|
|
|
*10(d) |
Guaranty Agreement, dated as of August 30, 1974, between IPC and Pacific Power & Light Company. File number 2-62034, Form S-7, filed on 6/30/78, as Exhibit 5(r). |
|
|
|
|
*10(e) |
Letter Agreement, dated January 23, 1976, between IPC and Portland General Electric Company. File number 2-56513, as Exhibit 5(i). |
|
|
|
|
*10(e)(i) |
Agreement for Construction, Ownership and Operation of the Number One Boardman Station on Carty Reservoir, dated as of October 15, 1976, between Portland General Electric Company and IPC. File number 2-62034, Form S-7, filed on 6/30/78, as Exhibit 5(s). |
|
|
|
|
*10(e)(ii) |
Amendment, dated September 30, 1977, relating to agreement filed as Exhibit 10(e). File number 2-62034, Form S-7, filed on 6/30/78, as Exhibit 5(t). |
|
|
|
|
*10(e)(iii) |
Amendment, dated October 31, 1977, relating to agreement filed as Exhibit 10(e). File number 2-62034, Form S-7, filed on 6/30/78, as Exhibit 5(u). |
|
|
|
|
*10(e)(iv) |
Amendment, dated January 23, 1978, relating to agreement filed as Exhibit 10(e). File number 2-62034, as Exhibit 5(v). File number 2-62034, Form S-7 filed on 6/30/78, as Exhibit 5(v). |
|
|
|
|
*10(e)(v) |
Amendment, dated February 15, 1978, relating to agreement filed as Exhibit 10(e). File number 2-62034, Form S-7, filed on 6/30/78, as Exhibit 5(w). |
|
|
|
|
*10(e)(vi) |
Amendment, dated September 1, 1979, relating to agreement filed as Exhibit 10(e). File number 2-68574, Form S-7, filed on 7/23/80, as Exhibit 5(x). |
|
|
|
|
*10(f) |
Participation Agreement, dated September 1, 1979, relating to the sale and leaseback of coal handling facilities at the Number One Boardman Station on Carty Reservoir. File number 2-68574, Form S-7, filed on 7/23/80, as Exhibit 5(z). |
|
|
|
|
*10(g) |
Agreements for the Operation, Construction and Ownership of the North Valmy Power Plant Project, dated December 12, 1978, between Sierra Pacific Power Company and IPC. File number 2-64910, Form S-7 filed on 6/29/79, as Exhibit 5(y). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(i) 1 |
The Revised Security Plan for Senior Management Employees - a non-qualified, deferred compensation plan, amended and restated effective November 20, 2003. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/04, filed on 5/6/04 as Exhibit 10(h)(i). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(ii) 1 |
2005 IDACORP, Inc. Executive Incentive Plan. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.2. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(iii) 1 |
The 1994 Restricted Stock Plan for officers and key executives of IDACORP, Inc. and IPC effective July 1, 1994. File number 1-3198, Form 10-K for the year ended 12/31/94, filed on 3/10/95, as Exhibit 10(n)(iii). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(iv) 1 |
Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 9/30/04, filed on 11/4/04, as Exhibit 10(h)(iv). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(v) 1 |
Form of Performance Share Award Agreement. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 9/30/04, filed on 11/4/04, as Exhibit 10(h)(v). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(vi) 1 |
The Revised Security Plan for Board of Directors - a non-qualified, deferred compensation plan effective August 1, 1996, revised March 8, 1999, as amended. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-K for the year ended 12/31/98, filed on 3/19/99, as Exhibit 10(h)(iv). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(vii) 1 |
IDACORP, Inc. Non-Employee Directors Stock Compensation Plan, as amended on January 20, 2005. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.9. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(viii)1 |
Form of Change in Control Agreement between IDACORP, Inc. and all Officers of IDACORP and IPC. File number 1-14465, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 9/30/99, filed on 11/5/99, as Exhibit 10(h). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(ix) 1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan, as amended as of March 17, 2005. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/05, filed on 5/5/05, as Exhibit 10(h)(ix). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(x) 1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan - Form of Stock Option Award Agreement. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 9/30/04, filed on 11/4/04, as Exhibit 10(h)(x). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xi)1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan-Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement (time vesting). File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.4. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xii)1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan-Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement (performance vesting). File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.5. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xiii)1 |
Form of Officer Indemnification Agreement as signed by all Officers of IDACORP, Inc. and IPC. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 6/30/04, filed on 8/5/04, as Exhibit 10(h)(viii). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xiv)1 |
Form of Director Indemnification Agreement as signed by all Directors of IDACORP, Inc. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 6/30/04, filed on 8/5/04, as Exhibit 10(h)(ix). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xv)1 |
IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company NEO 2005 Base Compensation Table. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.1. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xvi)1 |
2005 IDACORP, Inc. Executive Incentive Plan NEO Award Opportunity Chart. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.3. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xvii) 1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan - 2005 Restricted Stock Awards (time vesting) to NEOs Chart. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.6. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xviii) 1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan - 2005 Restricted Stock Awards (performance vesting) to NEOs Chart. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.7. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xix) 1 |
IDACORP, Inc. and IPC 2005 Compensation for Non-Employee Directors of the Board of Directors. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.8. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xx) 1 |
Jan B. Packwood 2005 Restricted Stock Award Agreement. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/26/05, as Exhibit 10.10. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxi)1 |
Offer of employment letter dated July 9, 2004, to Thomas R. Saldin from IDACORP, Inc. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-K for the year ended 12/31/04, filed on 3/9/05, as Exhibit 10(h)(xxiv). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxii)1 |
IDACORP, Inc. and IPC 2006 NEO Base Compensation Table. File Number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 1/25/06, as Exhibit 10.1. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxiii) 1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2006 Revised Executive Incentive Plan. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 2/9/06, as Exhibit 10.1. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxiv)1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2006 Revised Executive Incentive Plan NEO Award Opportunity Chart. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 2/9/06, as Exhibit 10.2 |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxv)1 |
IPC 1994 Restricted Stock Plan - Form of Restricted Stock Agreement (time-vesting). File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 2/9/06, as Exhibit 10.3. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxvi)1 |
IPC 1994 Restricted Stock Plan - 2006 Restricted Stock Awards (time-vesting) to NEOs Chart. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 2/9/06, as Exhibit 10.4. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxvii)1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan, Performance Share Award Agreement (performance with two goals). File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 3/17/06, as Exhibit 10.1. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxviii)1 |
IDACORP, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Incentive and Compensation Plan Performance Share Awards (performance with two goals) to NEOs Chart. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 8-K, filed on 3/17/06, as Exhibit 10.2. |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxix)1 |
Idaho Power Company Security Plan for Senior Management Employees II, a non-qualified, deferred compensation plan, effective January 1, 2005. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/06, filed on 5/9/06, as Exhibit 10(h)(xxix). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxx)1 |
First Amendment to the Idaho Power Company Security Plan for Senior Management Employees, effective December 31, 2004. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/06, filed on 5/9/06, as Exhibit 10(h)(xxx). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxxi)1 |
Idaho Power Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective November 15, 2000. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/06, filed on 5/9/06, as Exhibit 10(h)(xxxi). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxxii)1 |
First Amendment to the Idaho Power Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective October 1, 2003. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/06, filed on 5/9/06, as Exhibit 10(h)(xxxii). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxxiii)1 |
Second Amendment to the Idaho Power Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective January 1, 2005. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/06, filed on 5/9/06, as Exhibit 10(h)(xxxiii). |
|
|
|
|
*10(h)(xxxiv)1 |
Third Amendment to the Idaho Power Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective January 1, 2005. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/06, filed on 5/9/06, as Exhibit 10(h)(xxxiv). |
|
|
|
|
*10(i) |
Framework Agreement, dated October 1, 1984, between the State of Idaho and IPC relating to IPC's Swan Falls and Snake River water rights. File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 10(h). |
|
|
|
|
*10(i)(i) |
Agreement, dated October 25, 1984, between the State of Idaho and IPC relating to the agreement filed as Exhibit 10(i). File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 10(h)(i). |
|
|
|
|
*10(i)(ii) |
Contract to Implement, dated October 25, 1984, between the State of Idaho and IPC relating to the agreement filed as Exhibit 10(i). File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 10(h)(ii). |
|
|
|
|
*10(j) |
Agreement Regarding the Ownership, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Milner Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2899), dated January 22, 1990, between IPC and the Twin Falls Canal Company and the Northside Canal Company Limited. File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 10(m). |
|
|
|
|
*10(j)(i) |
Guaranty Agreement, dated February 10, 1992, between IPC and New York Life Insurance Company, as Note Purchaser, relating to $11,700,000 Guaranteed Notes due 2017 of Milner Dam Inc. File number 33-65720, Form S-3, filed on 7/7/93, as Exhibit 10(m)(i). |
|
|
|
|
*10(k) |
Power Purchase Agreement between IPC and PPL Montana, LLC, dated March 1, 2003 and Revised Confirmation Agreement dated May 9, 2003. File number 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 6/30/03, filed on 8/7/03, as Exhibit 10(k). |
|
|
|
|
*10(l) |
$150 Million Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of May 3, 2005, among IDACORP, Inc, various lenders, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as joint lead arranger and administrative agent and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, as joint lead arranger and syndication agent and Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as joint lead arrangers and joint book runners. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/05, filed on 5/5/05, as Exhibit 10(l). |
|
|
|
|
*10(m) |
$200 Million Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of May 3, 2005, among Idaho Power Company, various lenders, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as joint lead arranger and administrative agent and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, as joint lead arranger and syndication agent and Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as joint lead arrangers and joint book runners. File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 3/31/05, filed on 5/5/05, as Exhibit 10(m). |
|
|
|
|
12 |
Statement Re: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. (IDACORP, Inc.) |
|
|
|
|
12(a) |
Statement Re: Computation of Supplemental Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. (IDACORP, Inc.) |
|
|
|
|
12(b) |
Statement Re: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividend Requirements. (IDACORP, Inc.) |
|
|
|
|
12(c) |
Statement Re: Computation of Supplemental Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividend Requirements. (IDACORP, Inc.) |
|
|
|
|
12(d) |
Statement Re: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. (IPC) |
|
|
|
|
12 (e) |
Statement Re: Computation of Supplemental Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. (IPC) |
|
|
|
|
15 |
Letter Re: Unaudited Interim Financial Information. |
|
|
|
|
*21 |
Subsidiaries of IDACORP, Inc., File number 1-14465, 1-3198, Form 10-K for the year ended 12/31/04, filed on 3/9/05, as Exhibit 21. |
|
|
|
|
31(a) |
IDACORP, Inc. Rule 13a-14(a) certification. |
|
|
|
|
31(b) |
IDACORP, Inc. Rule 13a-14(a) certification. |
|
|
|
|
31(c) |
IPC Rule 13a-14(a) certification. |
|
|
|
|
31(d) |
IPC Rule 13a-14(a) certification. |
|
|
|
|
32(a) |
IDACORP, Inc. Section 1350 certification. |
|
|
|
|
32(b) |
IPC Section 1350 certification. |
|
|
|
|
99 |
Earnings press release for second quarter 2006. |
|
|
|
|
1 Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement |
|
|
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly
authorized.
IDACORP, Inc. |
(Registrant) |
Date |
August 8, 2006 |
By: |
/s/ J. LaMont Keen |
|
|
|
J. LaMont Keen |
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
Date |
August 8, 2006 |
By: |
/s/ Darrel T. Anderson |
|
|
|
Darrel T. Anderson |
|
|
|
Senior Vice President - Administrative Services |
|
|
|
and Chief Financial Officer |
IDAHO POWER COMPANY |
(Registrant) |
Date |
August 8, 2006 |
By: |
/s/ J. LaMont Keen |
|
|
|
J. LaMont Keen |
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
Date |
August 8, 2006 |
By: |
/s/ Darrel T. Anderson |
|
|
|
Darrel T. Anderson |
|
|
|
Senior Vice President - Administrative Services |
|
|
|
and Chief Financial Officer |