|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
General
Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility holding company under PUHCA 2005, administered by FERC. Ameren’s primary assets are the common stock of its subsidiaries. Ameren’s subsidiaries are separate, independent legal entities with separate businesses, assets, and liabilities. These subsidiaries operate, as the case may be, rate-regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution businesses, rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution businesses, and merchant electric generation businesses in Missouri and Illinois. Dividends on Ameren’s common stock and the payment of expenses by Ameren depend on distributions made to it by its subsidiaries. Ameren’s principal subsidiaries are listed below. Also see the Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations at the front of this report.
| • |
UE, or Union Electric Company, also known as AmerenUE, operates a rate-regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in Missouri. |
| • |
CIPS, or Central Illinois Public Service Company, also known as AmerenCIPS, operates a rate-regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois. |
| • |
Genco, or Ameren Energy Generating Company, operates a merchant electric generation business in Illinois and Missouri. Genco has an 80% ownership interest in EEI. |
| • |
CILCO, or Central Illinois Light Company, also known as AmerenCILCO, operates a rate-regulated electric transmission and distribution business, a merchant electric generation business (through its subsidiary, AERG) and a rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business, all in Illinois. |
| • |
IP, or Illinois Power Company, also known as AmerenIP, operates a rate-regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois. |
Ameren has various other subsidiaries responsible for the short- and long-term marketing of power, procurement of fuel, management of commodity risks, and provision of other shared services.
Ameren, through Genco, has an 80% ownership interest in EEI. Ameren and Genco consolidate EEI for financial reporting purposes. Effective January 1, 2010, as part of an internal reorganization, Resources Company transferred its 80% stock ownership interest in EEI to Genco through a capital contribution. The transfer of EEI to Genco was accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control, whereby Genco accounted for the transfer at the historical carrying value of the parent (Ameren) as if the transfer had occurred at the beginning of the earliest reporting period presented. Ameren’s historical cost basis in EEI included purchase accounting adjustments relating to Ameren’s acquisition of an additional 20% ownership interest in EEI in 2004. This transfer required Genco’s prior period financial statements to be retrospectively combined for all periods presented. Consequently, Genco’s prior period consolidated financial statements reflect EEI as if it had been a subsidiary of Genco.
The financial statements of Ameren, Genco and CILCO are prepared on a consolidated basis. UE, CIPS and IP have no subsidiaries, and therefore their financial statements were not prepared on a consolidated basis. All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated. All tabular dollar amounts are in millions, unless otherwise indicated.
On April 13, 2010, CIPS, CILCO and IP entered into a merger agreement under which CILCO and IP will be merged with and into CIPS as part of a two-step corporate reorganization of Ameren. The second step of the reorganization would involve the distribution of AERG common stock to Ameren and the subsequent contribution by Ameren of the AERG common stock to Resources Company. See Note 14 - Corporate Reorganization for additional information.
Our accounting policies conform to GAAP. Our financial statements reflect all adjustments (which include normal, recurring adjustments) that are necessary, in our opinion, for a fair presentation of our results. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions. Such estimates and assumptions affect reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reported periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The results of operations of an interim period may not give a true indication of results that may be expected for a full year. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Form 10-K.
Earnings Per Share
There were no material differences between Ameren’s basic and diluted earnings per share amounts for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009. The number of restricted stock shares and performance share units outstanding had an immaterial impact on earnings per share. All of Ameren’s remaining stock options expired in February 2010.
Long-term Incentive Plan of 1998 and 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan
A summary of nonvested shares as of March 31, 2010, under the Long-term Incentive Plan of 1998, as amended, and the 2006 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (2006 Plan) is presented below:
| Performance Share Units | Restricted Shares | |||||||||||||
| Share Units |
Weighted-average Fair Value Per Unit at Grant Date |
Shares |
Weighted-average Fair Value Per Share at Grant Date |
|||||||||||
|
Nonvested at January 1, 2010 |
945,337 | $ | 22.07 | 135,696 | $ | 48.92 | ||||||||
|
Granted(a) |
688,510 | 32.01 | - | - | ||||||||||
|
Dividends |
- | - | 1,162 | 26.60 | ||||||||||
|
Forfeitures |
(7,501 | ) | 22.54 | (4,369 | ) | 49.71 | ||||||||
|
Vested(b) |
(100,474 | ) | 31.19 | (52,828 | ) | 47.43 | ||||||||
|
Nonvested at March 31, 2010 |
1,525,872 | $ | 25.95 | 79,661 | $ | 49.87 | ||||||||
| (a) | Includes performance share units (share units) granted to certain executive and nonexecutive officers and other eligible employees in January 2010 under the 2006 Plan. |
| (b) | Share units vested due to attainment of retirement eligibility by certain employees. Actual shares issued for retirement-eligible employees will vary depending on actual performance over the three-year measurement period. |
The fair value of each share unit awarded in January 2010 under the 2006 Plan was determined to be $32.01. That amount was based on Ameren’s closing common share price of $27.95 at December 31, 2009, and lattice simulations. Lattice simulations are used to estimate expected share payout based on Ameren’s total shareholder return for a three-year performance period relative to the designated peer group beginning January 1, 2010. The significant assumptions used to calculate fair value also included a three-year risk-free rate of 1.70%, volatility of 23% to 39% for the peer group, and Ameren’s attainment of a three-year average earnings per share threshold during each year of the performance period.
Ameren recorded compensation expense of $5 million and $5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively, and a related tax benefit of $2 million and $2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, and 2009, respectively. As of March 31, 2010, total compensation expense of $22 million related to nonvested awards not yet recognized was expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 29 months.
Accounting Changes and Other Matters
The following is a summary of recently adopted authoritative accounting guidance as well as guidance issued but not yet adopted that could impact the Ameren Companies.
Variable-Interest Entities
In June 2009, the FASB issued amended authoritative guidance that significantly changes the consolidation rules for VIEs. The guidance requires an enterprise to qualitatively assess the determination of the primary beneficiary of a VIE based on whether the entity (1) has the power to direct matters that most significantly affect the activities of the VIE, and (2) has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. Further, the guidance requires an ongoing reconsideration of the primary beneficiary. It also amends the events that trigger a reassessment of whether an entity is a VIE. The adoption of this guidance, effective for us as of January 1, 2010, did not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. See Variable - interest Entities below for additional information.
Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements
In January 2010, the FASB issued amended authoritative guidance regarding fair value measurements. This guidance requires disclosures regarding significant transfers into and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements. It also requires information on purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis in the reconciliation of Level 3 fair value measurements. Further, the FASB clarified guidance regarding the level of disaggregation, inputs, and valuation techniques. This guidance was effective for us as of January 1, 2010, with the exception of guidance applicable to detailed Level 3 reconciliation disclosures, which will be effective for us as of January 1, 2011. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity because it provides enhanced disclosure requirements only. See Note 7 - Fair Value Measurements for additional information.
Goodwill and Intangible Assets
Goodwill. Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price of an acquisition over the fair value of the net assets acquired. Ameren’s goodwill relates to its acquisition of IP and an additional 20% EEI ownership interest acquired in 2004 as well as its acquisition of CILCORP and Medina Valley in 2003. IP’s goodwill relates to the acquisition of IP in 2004. Genco’s goodwill relates to an additional 20% EEI ownership interest acquired in 2004. We evaluate goodwill for impairment as of October 31 of each year, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired.
Intangible Assets. We evaluate intangible assets for impairment if events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amount might be impaired. Ameren’s, UE’s, Genco’s and CILCO’s intangible assets consisted of emission allowances at March 31, 2010. See also Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies for additional information on emission allowances.
The following table presents the SO2 and NOx emission allowances held and the related aggregate SO 2 and NOx emission allowance book values that were carried as intangible assets as of March 31, 2010. Emission allowances consist of various individual emission allowance certificates and do not expire. Emission allowances are charged to fuel expense as they are used in operations.
| SO2 and NOx in tons | SO2(a) | NOx(b) | Book Value(c) | |||||
|
Ameren |
3,192,000 | 75,851 | $ | 124 | (d) | |||
|
UE |
1,698,000 | 46,236 | 33 | |||||
|
Genco |
1,114,000 | 25,973 | 60 | |||||
|
CILCO (AERG) |
380,000 | 3,642 | 1 | |||||
| (a) | Vintages are from 2010 to 2020. Each company possesses additional allowances for use in periods beyond 2020. |
| (b) | Vintage is 2010. |
| (c) |
The book value represents SO2 and NOx emission allowances for use in periods through 2039. The book value at December 31, 2009, for Ameren, UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG) was $129 million, $35 million, $62 million, and $1 million, respectively. |
| (d) | Includes $30 million of fair-market value adjustments recorded in connection with Ameren’s 2003 acquisition of CILCORP. |
The following table presents amortization expense based on usage of emission allowances, net of gains from emission allowance sales, for Ameren, UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG) during the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
| Three Months | ||||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | |||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
$ | 3 | $ | 5 | ||||
|
UE |
(b | ) | (b | ) | ||||
|
Genco(a) |
3 | 5 | ||||||
|
CILCO (AERG) |
(b | ) | (b | ) | ||||
| (a) | Includes allowances consumed that were recorded through purchase accounting. |
| (b) | Less than $1 million. |
Excise Taxes
Excise taxes imposed on us are reflected on Missouri electric, Missouri natural gas, and Illinois natural gas customer bills. They are recorded gross in Operating Revenues and Operating Expenses - Taxes Other than Income Taxes on the statement of income. Excise taxes reflected on Illinois electric customer bills are imposed on the consumer and are therefore not included in revenues and expenses. They are recorded as tax collections payable and included in Taxes Accrued on the balance sheet. The following table presents excise taxes recorded in Operating Revenues and Operating Expenses - Taxes Other than Income Taxes for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
| Three Months | |||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | ||||||
|
Ameren |
$ | 46 | $ | 42 | |||
|
UE |
25 | 23 | |||||
|
CIPS |
5 | 5 | |||||
|
CILCO |
4 | 4 | |||||
|
IP |
12 | 10 | |||||
Uncertain Tax Positions
The amount of unrecognized tax benefits as of March 31, 2010, was $139 million, $90 million, less than $1 million, $30 million, $15 million, and less than $1 million for Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP, respectively. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits as of March 31, 2010, that would impact the effective tax rate, if recognized, was $6 million, $3 million, less than $1 million, less than $1 million, less than $1 million, and less than $1 million for Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP, respectively.
Ameren’s 2005 and 2006 federal income tax returns are before the Appeals Office of the Internal Revenue Service. The Internal Revenue Service is currently examining Ameren’s 2007 and 2008 income tax returns.
State income tax returns are generally subject to examination for a period of three years after filing of the return. The state impact of any federal changes remains subject to examination by various states for a period of up to one year after formal notification to the states. Ameren’s 2007 and 2008 State of Illinois income tax returns are currently under examination by the Illinois Department of Revenue.
It is reasonably possible that events will occur during the next 12 months that would cause the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits for the Ameren Companies to increase or decrease. However, the Ameren Companies do not believe such increases or decreases would be material to their results of operations, financial position or liquidity.
Asset Retirement Obligations
AROs at Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP increased compared to December 31, 2009, to reflect the accretion of obligations to their fair values.
Variable-interest Entities
According to the applicable authoritative accounting guidance, an entity is considered a VIE if it does not have sufficient equity to finance its activities without assistance from variable-interest holders, or if its equity investors lack any of the following characteristics of a controlling financial interest: control through voting rights, the obligation to absorb expected losses, or the right to receive expected residual returns. The primary beneficiary of a VIE is the entity that (1) has the power to direct matters that most significantly affect the activities of the VIE, and (2) has the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. Entities are required to consolidate a VIE if they are its primary beneficiary. We have determined that the following significant VIEs were held by the Ameren Companies at March 31, 2010:
— Affordable housing partnership investments. At March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, Ameren had investments in multiple affordable housing and low-income real estate development partnerships as well as an investment in a commercial real estate development partnership of $58 million and $64 million in the aggregate, respectively. Ameren has a variable interest in these investments as a limited partner. With the exception of the commercial real estate development partnership, Ameren owns less than a 50% interest in each partnership and receives the benefits and accepts the risks consistent with its limited partner interest. Ameren is not the primary beneficiary of these investments because Ameren does not have the power to direct matters that most significantly impact the activities of the VIE. These investments are classified as Other Assets on Ameren’s consolidated balance sheet. The maximum exposure to loss as a result of these variable interests is limited to the investments in these partnerships.
See Note 8 - Related Party Transactions for information about IP’s variable interest in AITC.
Noncontrolling Interest
Ameren’s noncontrolling interests comprise the 20% of EEI’s net assets not owned by Ameren and the Ameren subsidiaries’ outstanding preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption not owned by Ameren. These noncontrolling interests are classified as a component of equity separate from Ameren’s equity in its consolidated balance sheet. Genco’s noncontrolling interest comprises the 20% of EEI’s net assets not owned by Genco. This noncontrolling interest is classified as a component of equity separate from Genco’s equity in its consolidated balance sheet.
A reconciliation of the equity changes attributable to the noncontrolling interest at Ameren and Genco for the three months ended March 31, 2010, is shown below:
| Three Months | ||||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | |||||||
|
Ameren: |
||||||||
|
Noncontrolling interest, beginning of period |
$ | 207 | $ | 216 | ||||
|
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
4 | 4 | ||||||
|
Dividends paid to noncontrolling interest holders |
(2 | ) | (8 | ) | ||||
|
Noncontrolling interest, end of period |
$ | 209 | $ | 212 | ||||
|
Genco: |
||||||||
|
Noncontrolling interest, beginning of period |
$ | 12 | $ | 21 | ||||
|
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
1 | 2 | ||||||
|
Dividends paid to noncontrolling interest holders |
- | (6 | ) | |||||
|
Noncontrolling interest, end of period |
$ | 13 | $ | 17 | ||||
|
|||
NOTE 2 - RATE AND REGULATORY MATTERS
Below is a summary of significant regulatory proceedings and related lawsuits. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the timing of the final decisions of the various agencies and courts, or the impact on our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
Missouri
Pending Electric Rate Case
UE filed a request with the MoPSC in July 2009 to increase its annual revenues for electric service. The currently pending request, as amended, seeks to increase annual revenues from electric service by $287 million. Included in this increase request is approximately $118 million of anticipated increases in normalized net fuel costs in excess of the net fuel costs included in base rates previously authorized by the MoPSC in its January 2009 electric rate order. The balance of the increase request is based primarily on investments made to continue system-wide reliability improvements for customers, increases in costs essential to generating and delivering electricity, and higher financing costs. The electric rate increase request, as amended, is based on a 10.8% return on equity, a capital structure composed of 51.3% equity, a rate base of $6 billion, and a test year ended March 31, 2009, with certain pro-forma adjustments through the true-up date of January 31, 2010.
As part of its original filing, UE also requested that the MoPSC approve the implementation of an environmental cost recovery mechanism and a storm restoration cost tracker. In addition, UE requested that the MoPSC approve the continued use of the FAC and the vegetation management and infrastructure inspection cost tracking mechanism that the MoPSC previously authorized in its January 2009 electric rate order, and the continued use of the regulatory tracking mechanism for pension and postretirement benefit costs that the MoPSC previously authorized in its May 2007 electric rate order. The UE request included the discontinuation of the SO2 emission allowance sales tracker.
The MoPSC staff has responded to the UE request for an electric service rate increase. The MoPSC staff’s recommendation, as amended, is to increase UE’s annual revenues by $165 million based on a return on equity of 9.35%. Included in this recommendation is approximately $107 million of increases in normalized net fuel costs. Other parties also made recommendations through testimony filed in this case. The MoPSC staff and other parties have expressed opposition to some of the requested cost recovery mechanisms.
UE, the MoPSC staff, and other parties have agreed to several stipulations resolving various revenue requirement issues, which have been approved by the MoPSC and will be implemented with the effective date of the final rate order. Those stipulations include UE’s agreement to withdraw its request to implement an environmental cost recovery mechanism in this case in exchange for the ability to defer allowance for funds used during construction and depreciation costs for pollution control equipment at one of its power plants until the earlier of January 2012 or that equipment is put in customer rates. The parties also agreed to prospectively include the margins on certain wholesale contracts in UE’s FAC in exchange for an increase in the jurisdictional cost allocation to retail customers. In addition, the parties have agreed to a mechanism that will prospectively address the significant lost revenues UE can incur due to future operational issues at Noranda’s smelter plant in southeast Missouri. The agreement will permit UE, when a significant loss of service occurs at the Noranda plant, to sell the power not taken by Noranda and use the proceeds of those sales to offset the revenues lost from Noranda. UE will be allowed to keep the amount of revenues necessary to compensate UE for significant Noranda usage reductions but any excess revenues above the level necessary to compensate UE would be refunded to retail customers through the FAC. Approved stipulations also include the continued use of the regulatory tracking mechanism for pension and postretirement benefit costs, among other things.
The MoPSC still has several important issues to consider in this case. Those issues include determining the appropriate return on equity, depreciation rates, power plant maintenance and certain reliability expenditure levels to be reflected in base rates, as well as whether UE should be able to continue to employ its existing FAC at the current 95% sharing level and vegetation management and infrastructure inspection cost tracking mechanisms.
A decision by the MoPSC in this proceeding is required by the end of June 2010. UE cannot predict the level of any electric service rate change the MoPSC may approve, when any rate change may go into effect, whether the cost recovery mechanisms and trackers requested will be approved or continued, or whether any rate change that may eventually be approved will be sufficient to enable UE to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return on its investments when the rate change goes into effect.
Illinois
Electric and Natural Gas Delivery Service Rate Cases
On April 29, 2010, the ICC issued a consolidated order approving a net increase in annual revenues for electric delivery service of $32 million in the aggregate (CIPS - $17 million increase, CILCO - $1 million increase, and IP - $14 million increase) and a net decrease in annual revenues for natural gas delivery service of $27 million in the aggregate (CIPS - $3 million decrease, CILCO - $9 million decrease, and IP - $15 million decrease), based on a 9.9% to 10.3% return on equity with respect to electric delivery service and a 9.2% to 9.4% return on equity with respect to natural gas delivery service. These rate changes became effective on May 6, 2010. On May 6, 2010, the ICC amended the April 2010 rate order to correct a technical error in the calculation of cash working capital, which resulted in an additional increase in annual revenues totaling $10 million in the aggregate. The ICC consolidated rate order, as amended, approves a net increase in annual revenues for electric delivery service of $35 million in the aggregate (CIPS - $18 million increase, CILCO - $2 million increase, and IP - $15 million increase) and a net decrease in annual revenues for natural gas delivery service of $20 million in the aggregate (CIPS - $2 million decrease, CILCO - $7 million decrease, and IP - $11 million decrease). The rate changes relating to the error correction will become effective May 12, 2010.
The ICC order confirmed the previously approved 80% allocation of fixed non-volumetric residential and commercial natural gas customer charges, and approved a higher percentage of recovery of fixed non-volumetric electric residential and commercial customer charges. The percentage of costs to be recovered through fixed non-volumetric electric residential and commercial customer and meter charges increased from 27% to 40%. This increase will impact quarterly results of operations and cash flows, but is not expected to have any impact on annual margins.
In response to the ICC consolidated rate order and amended rate order, the Ameren Illinois Utilities intend to take immediate action to address the financial pressures created on the respective companies. CIPS, CILCO and IP intend to take the following actions:
| • |
significantly reduce budgets; |
| • |
institute a hiring freeze; |
| • |
substantially reduce the use of contractors; |
| • |
delay or cancel certain projects and planned activities; and |
| • |
reduce expenditures for capital projects designed to enhance reliability of their respective delivery systems. |
The Ameren Illinois Utilities and other parties have 30 days from the date of the order to request an ICC rehearing of the April 2010 consolidated order. The Ameren Illinois Utilities filed a motion to stay certain decisions in the ICC order on May 7, 2010, and will seek rehearing. The Ameren Illinois Utilities may subsequently appeal the ICC rate order. The Ameren Illinois Utilities cannot predict if their requests for an ICC stay of certain decisions and/or rehearing are granted or, in the event the requests are denied by the ICC, whether court appeals will be filed and their ultimate outcome.
Federal
MISO and PJM Dispute Resolution
During 2009, MISO and PJM discovered an error in the calculation quantifying certain transactions between the RTOs. The error, which originated in April 2005, at the initiation of the MISO Energy and Operating Reserves Market was corrected prospectively in June 2009. Since discovering the error, MISO and PJM have worked jointly to estimate its financial impact on the respective markets. MISO and PJM are in agreement about the methodology used to recalculate the market flows occurring from June 2007 to June 2009 for the resettlement due from PJM to MISO estimated at $65 million. MISO and PJM are not in agreement about the methodology used to recalculate the market flows occurring from April 2005 to May 2007, nor are they in agreement about the resettlement amount. Attempts to resolve this dispute through FERC’s dispute resolution and settlement process were not successful. In early March 2010, MISO filed complaints with FERC against PJM seeking a $130 million resettlement, plus interest, of the contested transactions. In April 2010, PJM filed a complaint with FERC against MISO alleging MISO violated the joint operating agreement’s market-to-market coordination process for certain transactions between the two RTOs. PJM’s complaint states it is entitled to at least $25 million from MISO for amounts improperly paid in result of MISO’s alleged process violation. Ameren and its subsidiaries may receive or pay a to-be-determined portion of any resettlement amount due between the RTOs. No prospective refund or payment has been recorded related to this matter. We expect FERC will issue an order during the second quarter of 2010; however, it is not required to do so. Until FERC issues an order, we cannot predict the ultimate impact of these proceedings on Ameren’s, UE’s, CIPS’, Genco’s, CILCO’s and IP’s results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
|
|||
NOTE 3 - CREDIT FACILITY BORROWINGS AND LIQUIDITY
The liquidity needs of the Ameren Companies are typically supported through the use of available cash, short-term intercompany borrowings, or drawings under committed bank credit facilities.
The following table summarizes the borrowing activity and relevant interest rates as of March 31, 2010, under the 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreement, the 2009 Supplemental Credit Agreement, and the 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement (excluding letters of credit issued):
| 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreement ($1.15 billion) | Ameren (Parent) |
UE |
Genco |
Total |
||||||||||||||
|
March 31, 2010: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Average daily borrowings outstanding during 2010 |
$ | 629 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 629 | ||||||||||
|
Outstanding short-term debt at period end |
557 | - | - | 557 | ||||||||||||||
|
Weighted-average interest rate during 2010 |
2.98 | % | - | - | 2.98 | % | ||||||||||||
|
Peak short-term borrowings during 2010(a) |
$ | 712 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 712 | ||||||||||
|
Peak interest rate during 2010 |
5.5 | % | - | - | 5.5 | % | ||||||||||||
| 2009 Supplemental Credit Agreement ($150 million) |
Ameren (Parent) |
UE |
Genco |
Total |
||||||||||||||
|
March 31, 2010: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Average daily borrowings outstanding during 2010 |
$ | 82 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 82 | ||||||||||
|
Outstanding short-term debt at period end |
73 | - | - | 73 | ||||||||||||||
|
Weighted-average interest rate during 2010 |
3.49 | % | - | - | 3.49 | % | ||||||||||||
|
Peak short-term borrowings during 2010(a) |
$ | 93 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 93 | ||||||||||
|
Peak interest rate during 2010 |
5.5 | % | - | - | 5.5 | % | ||||||||||||
| 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement ($800 million) |
Ameren (Parent) |
CIPS |
CILCO (Parent) |
IP |
Total |
|||||||||||||
|
March 31, 2010: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Average daily borrowings outstanding during 2010 |
$ | 22 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 22 | ||||||||
|
Outstanding short-term debt at period end |
- | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||
|
Weighted-average interest rate during 2010 |
3.48 | % | - | - | - | 3.48 | % | |||||||||||
|
Peak short-term borrowings during 2010(a) |
$ | 100 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 100 | ||||||||
|
Peak interest rate during 2010 |
3.48 | % | - | - | - | 3.48 | % | |||||||||||
| (a) | The timing of peak short-term borrowings varies by company and therefore the amounts presented by company may not equal the total peak short-term borrowings for the period. The simultaneous peak short-term borrowings under all facilities during the first three months of 2010 were $905 million. |
Based on outstanding borrowings under the 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreements and the 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement (including reductions for $15 million of letters of credit issued under the 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreement), the available amounts under the facilities at March 31, 2010, were $655 million and $800 million, respectively.
Indebtedness Provisions and Other Covenants
The information below presents a summary of the Ameren Companies’ compliance with indebtedness provisions and other covenants. See Note 4 - Credit Facility Borrowings and Liquidity in the Form 10-K for a detailed description of those provisions.
The 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreements require Ameren, UE and Genco to each maintain consolidated indebtedness of not more than 65% of consolidated total capitalization pursuant to a calculation set forth in the facilities. All of the consolidated subsidiaries of Ameren, including the Ameren Illinois Utilities, are included for purposes of determining compliance with this capitalization test with respect to Ameren. Failure to satisfy the capitalization covenant constitutes a default under the 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreements. As of March 31, 2010, the ratios of consolidated indebtedness to total consolidated capitalization, calculated in accordance with the provisions of the 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreements, were 50%, 48% and 52%, for Ameren, UE and Genco, respectively.
The 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement requires Ameren and each Ameren Illinois utility to maintain consolidated indebtedness of not more than 65% of its consolidated total capitalization pursuant to a defined calculation. All of the consolidated subsidiaries of Ameren are included for purposes of determining compliance with this capitalization test with respect to Ameren. As of March 31, 2010, the ratios of consolidated indebtedness to total consolidated capitalization for Ameren, CIPS, CILCO and IP, calculated in accordance with the provisions of the 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement, were 50%, 44%, 39%, and 45%, respectively. In addition, Ameren is required to maintain a ratio of consolidated funds from operations plus interest expense to consolidated interest expense of at least 2.0 to 1, as of the end of the most recent four fiscal quarters and calculated and subject to adjustment in accordance with the 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement. Ameren’s ratio as of March 31, 2010, was 4.5 to 1. Failure to satisfy these covenants constitutes a default under the 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement.
None of Ameren’s credit facilities or financing arrangements contain credit rating triggers that would cause an event of default or acceleration of repayment of outstanding balances. At March 31, 2010, management believes that the Ameren Companies were in compliance with their credit facilities’ provisions and covenants.
Money Pools
Ameren has money pool agreements with and among its subsidiaries to coordinate and provide for certain short-term cash and working capital requirements. Separate money pools are maintained for utility and non-state-regulated entities. Ameren Services is responsible for the operation and administration of the money pool agreements.
Utility
Through the utility money pool, the pool participants may access the committed credit facilities. See discussion above for amounts available under the facilities at March 31, 2010. UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP may borrow from each other through the utility money pool agreement subject to applicable regulatory short-term borrowing authorizations. Ameren and AERG may participate in the utility money pool only as lenders. The primary sources of external funds for the utility money pool are the 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreements and the 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement. The average interest rate for borrowing under the utility money pool for the three months ended March 31, 2010, was 0.14% (2009 - 0.24%).
Non-state-regulated Subsidiaries
Ameren Services, Resources Company, Genco, AERG, Marketing Company, AFS and other non-state-regulated Ameren subsidiaries have the ability, subject to Ameren parent company authorization and applicable regulatory short-term borrowing authorizations, to access funding from the 2009 Multiyear Credit Agreements through a non-state-regulated subsidiary money pool agreement. In addition, Ameren had available cash balances at March 31, 2010, which can be loaned into this arrangement. The average interest rate for borrowing under the non-state-regulated subsidiary money pool for the three months ended March 31, 2010, was 0.62% (2009 - 1.2%).
See Note 8 - Related Party Transactions for the amount of interest income and expense from the money pool arrangements recorded by the Ameren Companies for the three months ended March 31, 2010.
|
|||
NOTE 4 - LONG-TERM DEBT AND EQUITY FINANCINGS
Ameren
Under DRPlus, pursuant to an effective SEC Form S-3 registration statement, and under our 401(k) plan, pursuant to an effective SEC Form S-8 registration statement, Ameren issued a total of 0.8 million new shares of common stock valued at $20 million in the three months ended March 31, 2010.
In February 2010, CILCORP completed a covenant defeasance of its remaining outstanding 9.375% senior bonds due 2029 by depositing approximately $2.7 million in U.S. government obligations and cash with the indenture trustee. This deposit will be used solely to satisfy the principal and remaining interest obligations on these bonds. In connection with this covenant defeasance, the lien on the capital stock of CILCO securing these bonds was released.
Indenture Provisions and Other Covenants
The information below presents a summary of the Ameren Companies’ compliance with indenture provisions and other covenants. See Note 5 - Long-term Debt and Equity Financings in the Form 10-K for a detailed description of those provisions.
UE’s, CIPS’, CILCO’s and IP’s indenture provisions and articles of incorporation include covenants and provisions related to the issuances of first mortgage bonds and preferred stock. UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP are required to meet certain ratios to issue first mortgage bonds and preferred stock. The following table includes the required and actual earnings coverage ratios for interest charges and preferred dividends and bonds and preferred stock issuable for the 12 months ended March 31, 2010, at an assumed interest rate of 7% and dividend rate of 8%.
|
Required Interest Coverage Ratio(a) |
Actual Interest Coverage Ratio |
Bonds Issuable(b) |
Required Dividend Coverage Ratio(c) |
Actual Dividend Coverage Ratio |
Preferred Stock Issuable |
||||||||||
|
UE |
³2.0 | 3.0 | $ | 1,424 | ³2.5 | 45.7 | $ | 1,283 | |||||||
|
CIPS |
³2.0 | 4.6 | 356 | ³1.5 | 2.1 | 140 | |||||||||
|
CILCO |
³2.0(d) | 7.2 | 214 | ³2.5 | 139.6 | 50 | (e) | ||||||||
|
IP |
³2.0 | 3.9 | 1,213 | ³1.5 | 1.9 | 342 | |||||||||
| (a) | Coverage required on the annual interest charges on first mortgage bonds outstanding and to be issued. Coverage is not required in certain cases when additional first mortgage bonds are issued on the basis of retired bonds. |
| (b) | Amount of bonds issuable based either on meeting required coverage ratios or unfunded property additions, whichever is more restrictive. These amounts shown also include bonds issuable based on retired bond capacity of $94 million, $18 million, $44 million and $536 million, at UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, respectively. |
| (c) | Coverage required on the annual interest charges on all long-term debt (CIPS only) and the annual dividend on preferred stock outstanding and to be issued, as required in the respective company’s articles of incorporation. For CILCO, this ratio must be met for a period of 12 consecutive calendar months within the 15 months immediately preceding the issuance. |
| (d) | In lieu of meeting the interest coverage ratio requirement, CILCO may attempt to meet an earnings requirement of at least 12% of the principal amount of all mortgage bonds outstanding and to be issued. For the three months ended March 31, 2010, CILCO had earnings equivalent to at least 36% of the principal amount of all mortgage bonds outstanding. |
| (e) | See Note 4 - Credit Facility Borrowings and Liquidity in the Form 10-K for a discussion regarding the restriction on the issuance of preferred stock by CILCO under the 2009 Illinois Credit Agreement. |
UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP as well as certain other nonregistrant Ameren subsidiaries are subject to Section 305(a) of the Federal Power Act, which makes it unlawful for any officer or director of a public utility, as defined in the Federal Power Act, to participate in the making or paying of any dividend from any funds “properly included in capital account.” The meaning of this limitation has never been clarified under the Federal Power Act or FERC regulations; however, FERC has consistently interpreted the provision to allow dividends to be paid as long as (1) the source of the dividends is clearly disclosed, (2) the dividends are not excessive and (3) there is no self-dealing on the part of corporate officials. At a minimum, Ameren believes that dividends can be paid by its subsidiaries that are public utilities from net income and retained earnings. In addition, under Illinois law, CIPS, CILCO and IP may not pay any dividend on their respective stock, unless, among other things, their respective earnings and earned surplus are sufficient to declare and pay a dividend after provision is made for reasonable and proper reserves, or unless CIPS, CILCO or IP has specific authorization from the ICC.
UE’s mortgage indenture contains certain provisions that restrict the amount of common dividends that can be paid by UE. Under this mortgage indenture, $31 million of total retained earnings was restricted against payment of common dividends, except those dividends payable in common stock, which left $1.8 billion of free and unrestricted retained earnings at March 31, 2010.
CIPS’ articles of incorporation and mortgage indentures require its dividend payments on common stock to be based on ratios of common stock to total capitalization and other provisions related to certain operating expenses and accumulations of earned surplus.
CILCO’s articles of incorporation prohibit the payment of dividends on its common stock from either paid-in surplus or any surplus created by a reduction of stated capital or capital stock. Dividend payment is also prohibited if at the time of dividend declaration the earned surplus account (after deducting the payment of such dividends) would not contain an amount at least equal to two times the annual dividend requirement on all outstanding shares of CILCO’s preferred stock.
Genco’s indenture includes provisions that require Genco to maintain certain debt service coverage and/or debt-to-capital ratios in order for Genco to pay dividends, to make certain principal or interest payments, to make certain loans to or investments in affiliates, or to incur additional indebtedness. The following table summarizes these ratios for the 12 months ended March 31, 2010:
|
Required Interest Coverage Ratio |
Actual Interest Coverage Ratio |
Required Debt-to- Capital Ratio |
Actual Debt-to- Capital Ratio |
||||||||
|
Genco(a) |
³1.75 | (b) | 4.9 | £60 | % | 50 | % |
| (a) | Interest coverage ratio relates to covenants regarding certain dividend, principal and interest payments on certain subordinated intercompany borrowings. The debt-to-capital ratio relates to a debt incurrence covenant, which also requires an interest coverage ratio of 2.5 for the most recently ended four fiscal quarters. |
| (b) | Ratio excludes amounts payable under Genco’s intercompany note to CIPS. The ratio must be met both for the prior four fiscal quarters and for the succeeding four six-month periods. |
Genco’s debt incurrence-related ratio restrictions and restricted payment limitations under its indenture may be disregarded if both Moody’s and S&P reaffirm the ratings of Genco in place at the time of the debt incurrence after considering the additional indebtedness.
In order for the Ameren Companies to issue securities in the future, they will have to comply with any applicable tests in effect at the time of any such issuances.
Off-Balance-Sheet Arrangements
At March 31, 2010, none of the Ameren Companies had any off-balance-sheet financing arrangements, other than operating leases entered into in the ordinary course of business. None of the Ameren Companies expect to engage in any significant off-balance-sheet financing arrangements in the near future.
|
|||
NOTE 5 - OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSES
The following table presents Other Income and Expenses for each of the Ameren Companies for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
| Three Months | ||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | |||||
|
Ameren:(a) |
||||||
|
Miscellaneous income: |
||||||
|
Allowance for equity funds used during construction |
$ | 13 | $ | 6 | ||
|
Interest income on industrial development revenue bonds |
7 | 7 | ||||
|
Interest and dividend income |
1 | 1 | ||||
|
Other |
1 | 2 | ||||
|
Total miscellaneous income |
$ | 22 | $ | 16 | ||
|
Miscellaneous expense: |
||||||
|
Donations |
$ | 2 | $ | 3 | ||
|
Other |
5 | 1 | ||||
|
Total miscellaneous expense |
$ | 7 | $ | 4 | ||
|
UE: |
||||||
|
Miscellaneous income: |
||||||
|
Allowance for equity funds used during construction |
$ | 13 | $ | 6 | ||
|
Interest income on industrial development revenue bonds |
7 | 7 | ||||
|
Other |
1 | - | ||||
|
Total miscellaneous income |
$ | 21 | $ | 13 | ||
|
Miscellaneous expense: |
||||||
|
Donations |
$ | 1 | $ | 2 | ||
|
Other |
1 | - | ||||
|
Total miscellaneous expense |
$ | 2 | $ | 2 | ||
|
CIPS: |
||||||
|
Miscellaneous income: |
||||||
|
Interest and dividend income |
$ | 1 | $ | 2 | ||
|
Other |
- | 1 | ||||
|
Total miscellaneous income |
$ | 1 | $ | 3 | ||
|
Miscellaneous expense: |
||||||
|
Other |
$ | - | $ | 1 | ||
|
Total miscellaneous expense |
$ | - | $ | 1 | ||
|
Genco: |
||||||
|
Miscellaneous expense: |
||||||
|
Other |
$ | 1 | $ | - | ||
|
Total miscellaneous expense |
$ | 1 | $ | - | ||
|
CILCO: |
||||||
|
Miscellaneous expense: |
||||||
|
Other |
$ | 1 | $ | 1 | ||
|
Total miscellaneous expense |
$ | 1 | $ | 1 | ||
|
IP: |
||||||
|
Miscellaneous income: |
||||||
|
Other |
$ | 1 | $ | 1 | ||
|
Total miscellaneous income |
$ | 1 | $ | 1 | ||
|
Miscellaneous expense: |
||||||
|
Other |
$ | 2 | $ | 1 | ||
|
Total miscellaneous expense |
$ | 2 | $ | 1 | ||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
|
|||
NOTE 6 - DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
We use derivatives principally to manage the risk of changes in market prices for natural gas, coal, diesel, electricity, uranium, and emission allowances. Such price fluctuations may cause the following:
| • |
an unrealized appreciation or depreciation of our contracted commitments to purchase or sell when purchase or sale prices under the commitments are compared with current commodity prices; |
| • |
market values of coal, natural gas, and uranium inventories or emission allowances that differ from the cost of those commodities in inventory; and |
| • |
actual cash outlays for the purchase of these commodities that differ from anticipated cash outlays. |
The derivatives that we use to hedge these risks are governed by our risk management policies for forward contracts, futures, options, and swaps. Our net positions are continually assessed within our structured hedging programs to determine whether new or offsetting transactions are required. The goal of the hedging program is generally to mitigate financial risks while ensuring that sufficient volumes are available to meet our requirements. Contracts we enter into as part of our risk management program may be settled financially, settled by physical delivery, or net settled with the counterparty.
The following table presents open gross derivative volumes by commodity type as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009:
| Quantity (in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NPNS Contracts(a) |
Cash Flow Hedges(b) |
Other Derivatives(c) |
Derivatives that Qualify for Regulatory Deferral(d) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Commodity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||||
|
Coal (in tons) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(e) |
74 | 115 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
UE |
41 | 81 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
17 | 17 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
7 | 8 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas (in mmbtu) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(e) |
149 | 165 | (f | ) | (f | ) | 55 | 28 | 174 | 136 | ||||||||||||||
|
UE |
20 | 22 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (g | ) | 5 | 25 | 21 | |||||||||||||
|
CIPS |
25 | 28 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 29 | 22 | ||||||||||||
|
Genco |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 5 | 7 | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
45 | 50 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 46 | 36 | ||||||||||||
|
IP |
59 | 66 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 74 | 57 | ||||||||||||
|
Heating oil (in gallons) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(e) |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 83 | 94 | 107 | 117 | ||||||||||||
|
UE |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 107 | 117 | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 65 | 73 | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 19 | 21 | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
Power (in megawatthours) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(e) |
71 | 76 | 29 | 32 | 33 | 22 | 33 | 36 | ||||||||||||||||
|
UE |
3 | 4 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (g | ) | (g | ) | 5 | 4 | ||||||||||||
|
CIPS |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 9 | 10 | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 2 | 3 | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||
|
IP |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | 14 | 16 | ||||||||||
|
SO2 emission allowances (in tons) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (g | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||
|
Genco |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (g | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||
|
CILCO |
(f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (g | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | ||||||||
|
Uranium (in pounds) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren |
6 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (g | ) | (g | ) | |||||||||
|
UE |
6 | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (f | ) | (g | ) | (g | ) | |||||||||
| (a) | Contracts through December 2013, March 2015, September 2035, and June 2020 for coal, natural gas, power, and uranium, respectively, as of March 31, 2010. |
| (b) | Contracts through December 2012 for power, as of March 31, 2010. |
| (c) |
Contracts through April 2012, December 2013, December 2013, and December 2010 for natural gas, heating oil, power, and SO2 emission allowances, respectively, as of March 31, 2010. |
| (d) | Contracts through October 2015, December 2013, December 2012, and November 2011 for natural gas, heating oil, power, and uranium, respectively, as of March 31, 2010. |
| (e) | Includes amounts from Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries. |
| (f) | Not applicable. |
| (g) | Less than 1 million. |
Authoritative guidance regarding derivative instruments requires that all contracts considered to be derivative instruments be recorded on the balance sheet at their fair values, unless the NPNS exception applies. See Note 7 - Fair Value Measurements for our methods of assessing the fair value of derivative instruments. Many of our physical contracts, such as our coal and purchased power contracts, qualify for the NPNS exception to derivative accounting rules. The revenue or expense on NPNS contracts is recognized at the contract price upon physical delivery.
If we determine that a contract meets the definition of a derivative and is not eligible for the NPNS exception, we review the contract to determine if it qualifies for hedge accounting. We also consider whether gains or losses resulting from such derivatives qualify for regulatory deferral. Contracts that qualify for cash flow hedge accounting are recorded at fair value with changes in fair value charged or credited to accumulated OCI in the period in which the change occurs, to the extent the hedge is effective. To the extent the hedge is ineffective, the related changes in fair value are charged or credited to the statement of income in the period in which the change occurs. When the contract is settled or delivered, the net gain or loss is recorded in the statement of income.
Derivative contracts that qualify for regulatory deferral are recorded at fair value, with changes in fair value charged or credited to regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities in the period in which the change occurs. Regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities are amortized to the statement of income as related losses and gains are reflected in rates charged to customers.
Certain derivative contracts are entered into on a regular basis as part of our risk management program but do not qualify for the NPNS exception, hedge accounting, or regulatory deferral accounting. Such contracts are recorded at fair value, with changes in fair value charged or credited to the statement of income in the period in which the change occurs.
The following table presents the carrying value and balance sheet location of all derivative instruments as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009:
| Balance Sheet Location |
Ameren(a) |
UE |
CIPS |
Genco |
CILCO |
IP |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 2010: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Derivative assets designated as hedging instruments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commodity contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
MTM derivative assets |
$ | 32 | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | $ | - | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | |||||||||
|
Other assets |
12 | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 44 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||||||||
| Derivative assets not designated as hedging instruments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commodity contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
MTM derivative assets |
$ | 16 | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | $ | 1 | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | |||||||||
|
Other current assets |
- | 1 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other assets |
2 | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
MTM derivative assets |
39 | (b | ) | (b | ) | 13 | (b | ) | (b | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
Other current assets |
- | 22 | - | - | 4 | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other assets |
34 | 20 | - | 12 | 3 | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
MTM derivative assets |
146 | (b | ) | (b | ) | 20 | (b | ) | (b | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
Other current assets |
- | 16 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other assets |
21 | 2 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 258 | $ | 61 | $ | - | $ | 46 | $ | 8 | $ | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Derivative liabilities not designated as hedging instruments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commodity contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
MTM derivative liabilities |
$ | 115 | $ | 16 | $ | 18 | $ | (b | ) | $ | 23 | $ | 42 | ||||||||||||
|
Other current liabilities |
- | - | - | 1 | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
85 | 13 | 14 | 2 | 20 | 37 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
MTM derivative liabilities |
14 | 8 | - | (b | ) | 1 | - | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Other current liabilities |
- | - | - | 6 | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
5 | 3 | - | 1 | 1 | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
MTM derivative liabilities |
123 | 3 | 11 | (b | ) | 6 | 17 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
MTM derivative liabilities - affiliates |
(b | ) | (b | ) | 64 | (b | ) | 30 | 88 | |||||||||||||||||
|
Other current liabilities |
- | - | - | 17 | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
12 | 1 | 111 | - | 57 | 169 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uranium |
MTM derivative liabilities |
2 | 2 | - | (b | ) | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total liabilities |
$ | 357 | $ | 47 | $ | 218 | $ | 27 | $ | 138 | $ | 353 | ||||||||||||||
| 2009: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Derivative assets designated as hedging instruments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commodity contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
MTM derivative assets |
$ | 20 | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | $ | - | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | |||||||||
|
Other assets |
4 | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 24 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||||||||
| Derivative liabilities designated as hedging instruments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commodity contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
MTM derivative liabilities |
$ | 1 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | (b | ) | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||||||
|
Total liabilities |
$ | 1 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||||||||
| Derivative assets not designated as hedging instruments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commodity contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
MTM derivative assets |
$ | 19 | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | $ | - | $ | (b | ) | $ | (b | ) | |||||||||
|
Other current assets |
- | 2 | 1 | - | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other assets |
4 | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
MTM derivative assets |
39 | (b | ) | (b | ) | 14 | (b | ) | (b | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
Other current assets |
- | 22 | - | - | 4 | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other assets |
41 | 23 | - | 14 | 4 | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
MTM derivative assets |
43 | (b | ) | (b | ) | 8 | (b | ) | (b | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
Other assets |
10 | 7 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 156 | $ | 54 | $ | 1 | $ | 36 | $ | 11 | $ | 2 | ||||||||||||||
| Derivative liabilities not designated as hedging instruments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commodity contracts: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
MTM derivative liabilities |
$ | 55 | $ | 10 | $ | 8 | $ | (b | ) | $ | 7 | $ | 17 | ||||||||||||
|
Other current liabilities |
- | - | - | 1 | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
44 | 6 | 8 | - | 8 | 19 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
MTM derivative liabilities |
15 | 9 | - | (b | ) | 2 | - | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Other current liabilities |
- | - | - | 5 | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
5 | 3 | - | 2 | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
MTM derivative liabilities |
37 | 8 | 2 | (b | ) | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
MTM derivative liabilities - affiliates |
(b | ) | (b | ) | 43 | (b | ) | 19 | 65 | |||||||||||||||||
|
Other current liabilities |
- | - | - | 7 | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
4 | - | 95 | - | 49 | 145 | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uranium |
MTM derivative liabilities |
1 | 1 | - | (b | ) | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Other deferred credits and liabilities |
1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total liabilities |
$ | 162 | $ | 38 | $ | 156 | $ | 15 | $ | 86 | $ | 249 | ||||||||||||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
| (b) | Balance sheet line item not applicable to registrant. |
The following table presents the cumulative amount of pretax net gains (losses) on all derivative instruments in accumulated OCI and regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009:
| Ameren(a) | UE | CIPS | Genco | CILCO | IP | |||||||||||||||||||
|
2010: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cumulative gains (losses) deferred in accumulated OCI: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power derivative contracts(b) |
$ | 46 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||||||
|
Interest rate derivative contracts(c)(d) |
(10 | ) | - | - | (10 | ) | - | - | ||||||||||||||||
|
Cumulative gains (losses) deferred in regulatory liabilities or assets: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas derivative contracts(e) |
(180 | ) | (28 | ) | (32 | ) | - | (42 | ) | (78 | ) | |||||||||||||
|
Power derivative contracts(f) |
(21 | ) | 15 | (186 | ) | - | (93 | ) | (274 | ) | ||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil derivative contracts(g) |
6 | 6 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Uranium derivative contracts(h) |
(3 | ) | (3 | ) | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||
|
2009: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cumulative gains (losses) deferred in accumulated OCI: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power derivative contracts(b) |
$ | 24 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | ||||||||||||
|
Interest rate derivative contracts(c)(d) |
(10 | ) | - | - | (10 | ) | - | - | ||||||||||||||||
|
Cumulative gains (losses) deferred in regulatory liabilities or assets: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas derivative contracts(e) |
(74 | ) | (13 | ) | (15 | ) | - | (12 | ) | (34 | ) | |||||||||||||
|
Power derivative contracts(f) |
(11 | ) | (1 | ) | (140 | ) | - | (69 | ) | (213 | ) | |||||||||||||
|
Heating oil derivative contracts(g) |
5 | 5 | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Uranium derivative contracts(h) |
(2 | ) | (2 | ) | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
| (b) | Represents net gains associated with power derivative contracts at Ameren. These contracts are a partial hedge of electricity price exposure through December 2012 as of March 31, 2010. Current gains of $35 million and $22 million were recorded at Ameren as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, respectively. |
| (c) | Includes net gains associated with interest rate swaps at Genco that were a partial hedge of the interest rate on debt issued in June 2002. The swaps cover the first 10 years of debt that has a 30-year maturity, and the gain in OCI is amortized over a 10-year period that began in June 2002. The carrying value at March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, was $1 million and $1 million, respectively. Over the next twelve months, $0.7 million of the gain will be amortized. |
| (d) | Includes net losses associated with interest rate swaps at Genco. The swaps were executed during the fourth quarter of 2007 as a partial hedge of interest rate risks associated with Genco’s April 2008 debt issuance. The loss on the interest rate swaps is being amortized over a 10-year period that began in April 2008. The carrying value at March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, was a loss of $11 million and $11 million, respectively. Over the next twelve months, $1.4 million of the loss will be amortized. |
| (e) | Represents net losses associated with natural gas derivative contracts. These contracts are a partial hedge of natural gas requirements through October 2015 at UE, CIPS, CILCO, and IP, in each case as of March 31, 2010. Current gains deferred as regulatory liabilities include $1 million at UE as of March 31, 2010. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $16 million, $18 million, $23 million, and $42 million at UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, respectively, as of March 31, 2010. Current gains deferred as regulatory liabilities include $1 million, $1 million, $2 million, and $1 million at UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, respectively, as of December 31, 2009. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $8 million, $8 million, $7 million, and $17 million at UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, respectively, as of December 31, 2009. |
| (f) | Represents net gains (losses) associated with power derivative contracts. These contracts are a partial hedge of power price requirements through December 2012 at UE, CIPS, CILCO, and IP, in each case as of March 31, 2010. Current gains deferred as regulatory liabilities include $16 million at UE as of March 31, 2010. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $3 million, $75 million, $36 million, and $105 million at UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, respectively, as of March 31, 2010. Current gains deferred as regulatory liabilities include $5 million at UE as of December 31, 2009. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $6 million, $45 million, $20 million, and $68 million at UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, respectively, as of December 31, 2009. |
| (g) | Represents net gains on heating oil derivative contracts at UE. These contracts are a partial hedge of our transportation costs for coal through December 2013 as of March 31, 2010. Current gains deferred as regulatory liabilities include $5 million at UE as of March 31, 2010. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $8 million at UE as of March 31, 2010. Current gains deferred as regulatory liabilities include $5 million at UE as of December 31, 2009. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $9 million at UE as of December 31, 2009. |
| (h) | Represents net losses on uranium derivative contracts at UE. These contracts are a partial hedge of our uranium requirements through November 2011 as of March 31, 2010. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $2 million at UE as of March 31, 2010. Current losses deferred as regulatory assets include $1 million at UE as of December 31, 2009. |
Derivative instruments are subject to various credit-related losses in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to the transaction. Exchange-traded contracts are supported by the financial and credit quality of the clearing members of the respective exchanges and have nominal credit risk. In all other transactions, we are exposed to credit risk. Our credit risk management program involves establishing credit limits and collateral requirements for counterparties, using master trading and netting agreements, and reporting daily exposure to senior management.
We believe that entering into master trading and netting agreements mitigates the level of financial loss that could result from default by allowing net settlement of derivative assets and liabilities. We generally enter into the following master trading and netting agreements: (1) International Swaps and Derivatives Association agreement, a standardized financial natural gas and electric contract; (2) the Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, created by the Edison Electric Institute and the National Energy Marketers Association, a standardized contract for the purchase and sale of wholesale power; and (3) North American Energy Standards Board Inc. agreement, a standardized contract for the purchase and sale of natural gas. These master trading and netting agreements allow the counterparties to net settle sale and purchase transactions. Further, collateral requirements are calculated at a master trading and netting agreement level by counterparty.
Concentrations of Credit Risk
In determining our concentrations of credit risk related to derivative instruments, we review our individual counterparties and categorize each counterparty into one of eight groupings according to the primary business in which each engages. The following table presents the maximum exposure, as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, if counterparty groups were to completely fail to perform on contracts by grouping. The maximum exposure is based on the gross fair value of financial instruments, including NPNS contracts, which excludes collateral held, and does not consider the legally binding right to net transactions based on master trading and netting agreements.
| Affiliates(a) |
Coal Producers |
Commodity Marketing Companies |
Electric Utilities |
Financial Companies |
Municipalities/ Cooperatives |
Oil and Gas Companies |
Retail Companies |
Total | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
2010: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(b) |
$ | 590 | $ | 27 | $ | 8 | $ | 23 | $ | 106 | $ | 397 | $ | 10 | $ | 99 | $ | 1,260 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
- | 19 | 1 | 5 | 28 | 23 | - | - | 76 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CIPS |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Genco |
- | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | - | 5 | - | 17 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CILCO |
- | 3 | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
IP |
- | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
2009: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(b) |
$ | 517 | $ | 9 | $ | 16 | $ | 23 | $ | 123 | $ | 165 | $ | 11 | $ | 63 | $ | 927 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
- | 5 | 2 | 7 | 30 | 22 | - | - | 66 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CIPS |
- | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Genco |
- | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | - | 6 | - | 14 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CILCO |
- | 1 | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
IP |
- | - | - | - | 2 | - | 1 | - | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| (a) | Primarily comprised of Marketing Company’s exposure to the Ameren Illinois Utilities related to financial contracts. The exposure is not eliminated at the consolidated Ameren level as it is calculated without regard to the offsetting affiliate counterparty’s liability position. See Note 14 - Related Party Transactions in the Form 10-K for additional information on these financial contracts. |
| (b) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries. |
The following table presents the amount of cash collateral held from counterparties, as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, based on the contractual rights under the agreements to seek collateral and the maximum exposure as calculated under the individual master trading and netting agreements:
| Affiliates(a) |
Coal Producers |
Commodity Marketing Companies |
Electric Utilities |
Financial Companies |
Municipalities/ Cooperatives |
Oil and Gas Companies |
Retail Companies |
Total | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
2010: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
$ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 6 | $ | 5 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 11 | ||||||||||
|
2009: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 3 | $ | - | $ | 7 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 10 | ||||||||||
| (a) | Represents amounts held by Marketing Company. As of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, Ameren registrant subsidiaries held no cash collateral. |
The potential loss on counterparty exposures is reduced by all collateral held and the application of master trading and netting agreements. Collateral includes both cash collateral and other collateral held. As of March 31, 2010, other collateral consisted of letters of credit in the amount of $27 million and $1 million held by Ameren and Genco, respectively. As of December 31, 2009, other collateral consisted of letters of credit in the amount of $32 million, $1 million, and $1 million held by Ameren, UE and Genco, respectively. The following table presents the potential loss after consideration of collateral and application of master trading and netting agreements as of March 31, 2010:
| Affiliates(a) |
Coal Producers |
Commodity Companies |
Electric Utilities |
Financial Companies |
Municipalities/ Cooperatives |
Oil and Gas Companies |
Retail Companies |
Total | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
2010: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(b) |
$ | 587 | $ | - | $ | 3 | $ | 8 | $ | 72 | $ | 366 | $ | 8 | $ | 98 | $ | 1,142 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
- | - | - | 4 | 25 | 23 | - | - | 52 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CIPS |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Genco |
- | - | - | 2 | - | - | 3 | - | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CILCO |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||||||
|
IP |
- | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
2009: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(b) |
$ | 515 | $ | - | $ | 3 | $ | 11 | $ | 93 | $ | 132 | $ | 10 | $ | 61 | $ | 825 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
- | - | 1 | 5 | 26 | 21 | - | - | 53 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CIPS |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Genco |
- | - | - | 2 | - | - | 5 | - | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
CILCO |
- | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
IP |
- | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| (a) | Primarily comprised of Marketing Company’s exposure to the Ameren Illinois Utilities related to financial contracts. The exposure is not eliminated at the consolidated Ameren level as it is calculated without regard to the offsetting affiliate counterparty’s liability position. See Note 14 - Related Party Transactions in the Form 10-K for additional information on these financial contracts. |
| (b) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries. |
Derivative Instruments with Credit Risk-Related Contingent Features
Our commodity contracts contain collateral provisions tied to the Ameren Companies’ credit ratings. If we were to experience an adverse change in our credit ratings, or if a counterparty with reasonable grounds for uncertainty regarding performance of an obligation requested adequate assurance of performance, additional collateral postings might be required. The following table presents, as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, the aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit risk-related contingent features in a gross liability position, the cash collateral posted, and the aggregate amount of additional collateral that could be required to be posted with counterparties. The additional collateral required is the net liability position allowed under the master trading and netting agreements, assuming (1) the credit risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements were triggered on March 31, 2010, or December 31, 2009, and (2) those counterparties with rights to do so requested collateral:
|
Aggregate Fair Value of Derivative Liabilities(a) |
Cash Collateral Posted |
Potential Aggregate Amount of Additional Collateral Required(b) |
|||||||
|
2010: |
|||||||||
|
Ameren(c) |
$ | 573 | $ | 133 | $ 257 | ||||
|
UE |
127 | 14 | 89 | ||||||
|
CIPS |
48 | 13 | 23 | ||||||
|
Genco |
46 | - | 29 | ||||||
|
CILCO |
68 | 23 | 43 | ||||||
|
IP |
124 | 56 | 42 | ||||||
|
2009: |
|||||||||
|
Ameren(c) |
$ | 500 | $ | 61 | $ 367 | ||||
|
UE |
151 | 8 | 129 | ||||||
|
CIPS |
41 | 3 | 29 | ||||||
|
Genco |
60 | - | 48 | ||||||
|
CILCO |
56 | - | 44 | ||||||
|
IP |
71 | 11 | 52 | ||||||
| (a) | Prior to consideration of master trading and netting agreements and including NPNS contract exposures. |
| (b) | As collateral requirements with certain counterparties are based on master trading and netting agreements, the aggregate amount of additional collateral required to be posted is after consideration of the effects of such agreements. |
| (c) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries. |
Cash Flow Hedges
The following table presents the pretax net gain or loss for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, associated with derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges:
|
Derivatives in Cash Flow Hedging Relationship |
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in OCI on Derivatives(a) |
Location of (Gain) Loss Reclassified from Accumulated OCI into Income(b) |
Amount of (Gain) Loss Reclassified from Accumulated OCI into Income(b) |
Location of Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income on Derivatives(c) |
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income on Derivatives(c) |
||||||||
|
2010: |
|||||||||||||
|
Ameren:(d) |
|||||||||||||
|
Power |
$ 26 |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
$ (4 | ) |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
$ - | |||||||
|
Interest rate(e) |
- |
Interest Charges |
(f | ) |
Interest Charges |
- | |||||||
|
Genco: |
|||||||||||||
|
Interest rate(e) |
- |
Interest Charges |
(f | ) |
Interest Charges |
- | |||||||
|
2009: |
|||||||||||||
|
Ameren:(d) |
|||||||||||||
|
Power |
$ 46 |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
$ (40 | ) |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
$ (12 | ) | ||||||
|
Interest rate(e) |
- |
Interest Charges |
(f | ) |
Interest Charges |
- | |||||||
|
UE: |
|||||||||||||
|
Power |
(20 | ) |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
(19 | ) |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
2 | ||||||
|
Genco: |
|||||||||||||
|
Interest rate(e) |
- |
Interest Charges |
(f | ) |
Interest Charges |
- |
| (a) | Effective portion of gain (loss). |
| (b) | Effective portion of (gain) loss on settlements. |
| (c) | Ineffective portion of gain (loss) and amount excluded from effectiveness testing. |
| (d) | Includes amounts from Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries. |
| (e) | Represents interest rate swaps settled in prior periods. The cumulative gain and loss on the interest rate swaps is being amortized into income over a 10-year period. |
| (f) | Less than $1 million. |
See Note 11 - Other Comprehensive Income for additional information regarding changes in OCI.
Other Derivatives
The following table represents the net change in market value for derivatives not designated as hedging instruments for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments |
Location of Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income on Derivatives |
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in Income on Derivatives |
||||||
|
2010: |
||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Heating oil |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
$ | 1 | ||||
|
Natural gas (generation) |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
(1 | ) | |||||
|
Power |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
31 | ||||||
|
Total |
$ | 31 | ||||||
|
UE |
Natural gas (generation) |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
$ | 1 | ||||
|
Power |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
(1 | ) | |||||
|
Total |
$ | - | ||||||
|
Genco |
Heating oil |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
$ | 1 | ||||
|
Natural gas (generation) |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
(1 | ) | |||||
|
Power |
Operating Revenues |
1 | ||||||
|
Total |
$ | 1 | ||||||
|
2009: |
||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Heating oil |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
$ | 24 | ||||
|
Natural gas (generation) |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
3 | ||||||
|
Natural gas (resale) |
Operating Revenues - Gas |
2 | ||||||
|
Power |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
34 | ||||||
|
Total |
$ | 63 | ||||||
|
UE |
Heating oil |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
$ | 25 | ||||
|
Natural gas (generation) |
Operating Expenses - Fuel |
4 | ||||||
|
Power |
Operating Revenues - Electric |
(1 | ) | |||||
|
Total |
$ | 28 | ||||||
|
Genco |
Heating oil | Operating Expenses - Fuel | $ | (2 | ) | |||
| Natural gas (generation) | Operating Expenses - Fuel | (1 | ) | |||||
| Power | Operating Revenues | 2 | ||||||
|
Total |
$ | (1 | ) | |||||
|
CILCO |
Natural gas (resale) |
Operating Revenues - Gas |
$ | 2 | ||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
Derivatives that Qualify for Regulatory Deferral
The following table represents the net change in market value for derivatives that qualify for regulatory deferral for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
| Derivatives that Qualify for Regulatory Deferral |
Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in Regulatory Liabilities or Regulatory Assets on Derivatives |
|||||
|
2010: |
||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Heating oil |
$ | 1 | |||
|
Natural gas |
(106 | ) | ||||
|
Power |
(10 | ) | ||||
|
Uranium |
(1 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | (116 | ) | |||
|
UE |
Heating oil |
$ | 1 | |||
|
Natural gas |
(15 | ) | ||||
|
Power |
16 | |||||
|
Uranium |
(1 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | 1 | ||||
|
CIPS |
Natural gas |
$ | (17 | ) | ||
|
Power |
(46 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | (63 | ) | |||
|
CILCO |
Natural gas |
$ | (30 | ) | ||
|
Power |
(24 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | (54 | ) | |||
|
IP |
Natural gas |
$ | (44 | ) | ||
|
Power |
(61 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | (105 | ) | |||
|
2009: |
||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Heating oil |
$ | (27 | ) | ||
|
Natural gas |
(84 | ) | ||||
|
Power |
38 | |||||
|
Total |
$ | (73 | ) | |||
|
UE |
Heating oil |
$ | (27 | ) | ||
|
Natural gas |
(15 | ) | ||||
|
Power |
38 | |||||
|
Total |
(4 | ) | ||||
|
CIPS |
Natural gas |
$ | (13 | ) | ||
|
Power |
(73 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | (86 | ) | |||
|
CILCO |
Natural gas |
$ | (19 | ) | ||
|
Power |
(36 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | (55 | ) | |||
|
IP |
Natural gas |
$ | (37 | ) | ||
|
Power |
(106 | ) | ||||
|
Total |
$ | (143 | ) | |||
| (a) | Includes amounts for intercompany eliminations. |
UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP believe gains and losses on derivatives deferred as regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities are probable of recovery or refund through rates charged to customers. Regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities are amortized to operating expenses as related losses and gains are reflected in revenue through rates charged to customers. Therefore, gains and losses on these derivatives have no effect on operating income.
As part of the 2007 Illinois Electric Settlement Agreement and the 2009 Illinois RFP process, the Ameren Illinois Utilities entered into financial contracts with Marketing Company. These financial contracts are derivative instruments. They are accounted for as cash flow hedges by Marketing Company and as derivatives subject to regulatory deferral by the Ameren Illinois Utilities. Consequently, the Ameren Illinois Utilities and Marketing Company record the fair value of the contracts on their respective balance sheets and the changes to the fair value in regulatory assets or liabilities by the Ameren Illinois Utilities and OCI by Marketing Company. In Ameren’s consolidated financial statements, all financial statement effects of the derivative instruments are eliminated. See Note 14 - Related Party Transactions under Part II, Item 8 of the Form 10-K for additional information on these financial contracts.
|
|||
NOTE 7 - FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. We use various methods to determine fair value, including market, income, and cost approaches. With these approaches, we adopt certain assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about market risk or the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation. Inputs to the valuation can be readily observable, market-corroborated, or unobservable. We use valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Authoritative accounting guidance established a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. All financial assets and liabilities carried at fair value are classified and disclosed in one of the following three hierarchy levels:
Level 1: Inputs based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 1 assets and liabilities are primarily exchange-traded derivatives and assets, including U.S. treasury securities and listed equity securities, such as those held in UE’s Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund.
Level 2: Market-based inputs corroborated by third-party brokers or exchanges based on transacted market data. Level 2 assets and liabilities include certain assets held in UE’s Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund, including corporate bonds and other fixed-income securities, and certain over-the-counter derivative instruments, including natural gas swaps and financial power transactions. Derivative instruments classified as Level 2 are valued using corroborated observable inputs, such as pricing services or prices from similar instruments that trade in liquid markets. Our development and corroboration process entails obtaining multiple quotes or prices from outside sources. To derive our forward view to price our derivative instruments at fair value, we average the midpoints of the bid/ask spreads. To validate forward prices obtained from outside parties, we compare the pricing to recently settled market transactions. Additionally, a review of all sources is performed to identify any anomalies or potential errors. Further, we consider the volume of transactions on certain trading platforms in our reasonableness assessment of the averaged midpoint.
Level 3: Unobservable inputs that are not corroborated by market data. Level 3 assets and liabilities are valued based on internally developed models and assumptions or methodologies that use significant unobservable inputs. Level 3 assets and liabilities include derivative instruments that trade in less liquid markets, where pricing is largely unobservable, including the financial contracts entered into between the Ameren Illinois Utilities and Marketing Company. We value Level 3 instruments by using pricing models with inputs that are often unobservable in the market, as well as certain internal assumptions. Our development and corroboration process entails obtaining multiple quotes or prices from outside sources. As a part of our reasonableness review, an evaluation of all sources is performed to identify any anomalies or potential errors.
We perform an analysis each quarter to determine the appropriate hierarchy level of the assets and liabilities subject to fair value measurements. Financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety according to the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. All assets and liabilities whose fair value measurement is based on significant unobservable inputs are classified as Level 3.
In accordance with applicable authoritative accounting guidance, we consider nonperformance risk in our valuation of derivative instruments by analyzing the credit standing of our counterparties and considering any counterparty credit enhancements (e.g., collateral). The guidance also requires that the fair value measurement of liabilities reflect the nonperformance risk of the reporting entity, as applicable. Therefore, we have factored the impact of our credit standing as well as any potential credit enhancements into the fair value measurement of both derivative assets and derivative liabilities. Included in our valuation, and based on current market conditions, is a valuation adjustment for counterparty default derived from market data such as the price of credit default swaps, bond yields, and credit ratings. Ameren recorded losses totaling less than $1 million in the first quarter of 2010 related to valuation adjustments for counterparty default risk. At March 31, 2010, the counterparty default risk valuation adjustment related to net derivative liabilities totaled $3 million, $- million, $3 million, $- million, $5 million, and $14 million for Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP, respectively.
The following table sets forth, by level within the fair value hierarchy, our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of March 31, 2010:
|
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for (Level 1) |
Significant Other (Level 2) |
Significant Other Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) |
Total | |||||||||||
|
Assets: |
||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 73 | $ | 73 | ||||||
|
Natural gas |
15 | - | 3 | 18 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
11 | 56 | 144 | 211 | ||||||||||
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund(c): |
||||||||||||||
|
Equity securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
U.S. large capitalization |
202 | - | - | 202 | ||||||||||
|
Debt securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
Corporate bonds |
- | 42 | - | 42 | ||||||||||
|
Municipal bonds |
- | 1 | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
U.S. treasury and agency securities |
40 | 14 | - | 54 | ||||||||||
|
Asset-backed securities |
- | 6 | - | 6 | ||||||||||
|
Other |
- | 1 | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 42 | 42 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | 11 | 7 | 18 | ||||||||||
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund(c): |
||||||||||||||
|
Equity securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
U.S. large capitalization |
202 | - | - | 202 | ||||||||||
|
Debt securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
Corporate bonds |
- | 42 | - | 42 | ||||||||||
|
Municipal bonds |
- | 1 | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
U.S. treasury and agency securities |
40 | 14 | - | 54 | ||||||||||
|
Asset-backed securities |
- | 6 | - | 6 | ||||||||||
|
Other |
- | 1 | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 25 | 25 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
1 | - | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 20 | 20 | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
|
IP |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
|
Liabilities: |
||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 19 | $ | 19 | ||||||
|
Natural gas |
35 | - | 165 | 200 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
1 | 27 | 107 | 135 | ||||||||||
|
Uranium |
- | - | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 11 | 11 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
10 | - | 19 | 29 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||
|
Uranium |
- | - | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
|
CIPS |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
1 | - | 31 | 32 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 186 | 186 | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
3 | - | - | 3 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 17 | 17 | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
2 | - | 40 | 42 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 94 | 94 | ||||||||||
|
IP |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
5 | - | 74 | 79 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 274 | 274 | ||||||||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
| (b) | The derivative asset and liability balances are presented net of counterparty credit considerations. |
| (c) | Balance excludes $1 million of receivables, payables, and accrued income, net. |
The following table sets forth, by level within the fair value hierarchy, our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2009:
|
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for (Level 1) |
Significant Other (Level 2) |
Significant Other Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) |
Total | |||||||||||
|
Assets: |
||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 80 | $ | 80 | ||||||
|
Natural gas |
13 | - | 10 | 23 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | 3 | 74 | 77 | ||||||||||
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund(c): |
||||||||||||||
|
Equity securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
U.S. large capitalization |
195 | - | - | 195 | ||||||||||
|
Debt securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
Corporate bonds |
- | 45 | - | 45 | ||||||||||
|
Municipal bonds |
- | 1 | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
U.S. treasury and agency securities |
37 | 12 | - | 49 | ||||||||||
|
Other |
- | 2 | - | 2 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 44 | 44 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
1 | - | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | 2 | 5 | 7 | ||||||||||
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund(c): |
||||||||||||||
|
Equity securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
U.S. large capitalization |
195 | - | - | 195 | ||||||||||
|
Debt securities: |
||||||||||||||
|
Corporate bonds |
- | 45 | - | 45 | ||||||||||
|
Municipal bonds |
- | 1 | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
U.S. treasury and agency securities |
37 | 12 | - | 49 | ||||||||||
|
Other |
- | 2 | - | 2 | ||||||||||
|
CIPS |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 28 | 28 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 8 | 8 | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 8 | 8 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||
|
IP |
Derivative assets - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
|
Liabilities: |
||||||||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 20 | $ | 20 | ||||||
|
Natural gas |
22 | - | 77 | 99 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
4 | 2 | 36 | 42 | ||||||||||
|
Uranium |
- | - | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
|
UE |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 12 | 12 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
8 | - | 8 | 16 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | 2 | 6 | 8 | ||||||||||
|
Uranium |
- | - | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
|
CIPS |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 16 | 16 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 140 | 140 | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
1 | - | - | 1 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 7 | 7 | ||||||||||
|
CILCO |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
- | - | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | 15 | 15 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 69 | 69 | ||||||||||
|
IP |
Derivative liabilities - commodity contracts(b): |
|||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
1 | - | 36 | 37 | ||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | 212 | 212 | ||||||||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
| (b) | The derivative asset and liability balances are presented net of counterparty credit considerations. |
| (c) | Balance excludes $1 million of receivables, payables, and accrued income, net. |
The following table summarizes the changes in the fair value of financial assets and liabilities classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the three months ended March 31, 2010:
| Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses) | Total Realized |
Purchases, | Change in Unrealized Gains (Losses) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Beginning Balance at January 1, 2010 |
Included in Earnings(a) |
Included in OCI |
Included in Regulatory Assets/ Liabilities |
and Unrealized Gains (Losses) |
Issuances, and Other Settlements, Net |
Transfers out of Level 3 |
Ending Balance at March 31, 2010 |
Related to Assets/Liabilities Still Held at March 31, 2010 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net derivative |
Ameren: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
commodity |
Heating oil |
$ | 59 | $ | (1 | ) | $ | - | $ | (2 | ) | $ | (3 | ) | $ | (2 | ) | $ | - | $ | 54 | $ | - | ||||||||||||||
|
contracts |
Natural gas |
(70 | ) | 1 | - | (101 | ) | (100 | ) | 8 | - | (162 | ) | (94 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
42 | 17 | 23 | (23 | ) | 17 | (4 | ) | (18 | ) | 37 | (6 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uranium |
(2 | ) | - | - | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | - | - | (3 | ) | (1 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UE: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
33 | - | - | (2 | ) | (2 | ) | - | - | 31 | (1 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(7 | ) | - | - | (12 | ) | (12 | ) | 1 | - | (18 | ) | (12 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
(1 | ) | - | - | 12 | 12 | (3 | ) | (3 | ) | 5 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uranium |
(2 | ) | - | - | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | - | - | (3 | ) | (1 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CIPS: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(15 | ) | - | - | (17 | ) | (17 | ) | 1 | - | (31 | ) | (16 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
(140 | ) | - | - | (57 | ) | (57 | ) | 11 | - | (186 | ) | (57 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Genco: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
19 | - | - | - | - | (1 | ) | - | 18 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | 1 | - | - | 1 | (1 | ) | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
2 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CILCO: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
6 | (1 | ) | - | - | (1 | ) | - | - | 5 | - | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(13 | ) | - | - | (27 | ) | (27 | ) | 1 | - | (39 | ) | (26 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
(68 | ) | - | - | (32 | ) | (32 | ) | 6 | - | (94 | ) | (31 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IP: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(34 | ) | - | - | (45 | ) | (45 | ) | 6 | - | (73 | ) | (42 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
(212 | ) | - | - | (79 | ) | (79 | ) | 17 | - | (274 | ) | (78 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(a) See Note 6 - Derivative Financial Instruments for additional information on the recording of net gains and losses on derivatives to the statement of income.
The following table summarizes the changes in the fair value of financial assets and liabilities classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the three months ended March 31, 2009:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses) | Total Realized |
Purchases, | Change in Unrealized Gains (Losses) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Beginning Balance at January 1, 2009 |
Included in Earnings(a) |
Included in OCI |
Included in Regulatory Assets/ Liabilities |
and Unrealized Gains (Losses) |
Issuances, and Other Settlements, Net |
Transfers out of Level 3 |
Ending Balance at March 31, 2009 |
Related to Assets/Liabilities Still Held at March 31, 2009 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other current |
Ameren: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
assets |
Mutual fund |
$ | 6 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | (4 | ) | $ | 2 | $ | - | |||||||||||||||||
|
Net derivative |
Ameren: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
commodity |
Heating oil |
$ | 6 | $ | (2 | ) | $ | - | $ | 7 | $ | 5 | $ | (2 | ) | $ | - | $ | 9 | $ | (4 | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
contracts |
Natural gas |
(122 | ) | (25 | ) | 12 | (96 | ) | (109 | ) | 28 | - | (203 | ) | (92 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
134 | 44 | 69 | 6 | 119 | (41 | ) | (11 | ) | 201 | 91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SO2 |
(1 | ) | - | - | - | - | - | - | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UE: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Heating oil |
$ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 7 | $ | 7 | $ | (1 | ) | $ | - | $ | 6 | $ | - | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(20 | ) | - | 12 | (27 | ) | (15 | ) | 4 | - | (31 | ) | (14 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
27 | - | 20 | 4 | 24 | (14 | ) | (13 | ) | 24 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CIPS: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(28 | ) | - | - | (20 | ) | (20 | ) | 7 | - | (41 | ) | (17 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
(56 | ) | - | - | (84 | ) | (84 | ) | 11 | - | (129 | ) | (80 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Genco: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
- | - | - | - | - | (1 | ) | - | (1 | ) | - | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
- | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | 2 | - | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SO2 |
(1 | ) | - | - | - | - | - | - | (1 | ) | (1 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CILCO: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(26 | ) | (24 | ) | - | - | (24 | ) | 7 | - | (43 | ) | (22 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
(29 | ) | - | - | (42 | ) | (42 | ) | 6 | - | (65 | ) | (39 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IP: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Natural gas |
(49 | ) | - | - | (48 | ) | (48 | ) | 10 | - | (87 | ) | (39 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power |
(85 | ) | - | - | (123 | ) | (123 | ) | 18 | - | (190 | ) | (116 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net derivative |
Ameren |
$ | (2 | ) | $ | - | $ | - | $ | (3 | ) | $ | (3 | ) | $ | - | $ | - | $ | (5 | ) | $ | (3 | ) | |||||||||||||
|
foreign currency |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracts |
UE |
(2 | ) | - | - | (3 | ) | (3 | ) | - | - | (5 | ) | (3 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuclear |
Ameren: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Decommissioning |
Mutual fund |
$ | 2 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | $ | (2 | ) | $ | - | $ | - | $ | - | |||||||||||||||||
|
Trust Fund |
UE: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mutual fund | 2 | - | - | - | - | (2 | ) | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (a) | See Note 6 - Derivative Financial Instruments for additional information on the recording of net gains and losses on derivatives to the statement of income. |
Transfers out of Level 3 represent existing assets and liabilities that were previously classified as Level 3 but were recategorized to a higher level because the lowest significant input became observable during the period. Transfers into Level 2 from Level 3 were primarily caused by changes in availability of financial power trades observable on electronic exchanges compared with previous periods for the quarters ended March 31, 2010 and 2009. Any reclassifications are reported as transfers out of Level 3 at the fair value measurement reported at the beginning of the period in which the changes occur. For the quarters ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, there were no transfers into or out of Level 1, out of Level 2, nor into Level 3.
The Ameren Companies’ carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, short-term borrowings, and accounts payable approximate fair value because of the short-term nature of these instruments. The estimated fair value of long-term debt and preferred stock is based on the quoted market prices for same or similar issuances for companies with similar credit profiles or on the current rates offered to the Ameren Companies for similar financial instruments.
The following table presents the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our long-term debt and capital lease obligations and preferred stock at March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009:
| March 31, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | |||||||||||
| Carrying Amount | Fair Value | Carrying Amount | Fair Value | |||||||||
|
Ameren:(a)(b) |
||||||||||||
|
Long-term debt and capital lease obligations (including current portion) |
$ | 7,317 | $ | 7,849 | $ | 7,317 | $ | 7,719 | ||||
|
Preferred stock |
195 | 152 | 195 | 150 | ||||||||
|
UE: |
||||||||||||
|
Long-term debt and capital lease obligations (including current portion) |
$ | 4,022 | $ | 4,213 | $ | 4,022 | $ | 4,152 | ||||
|
Preferred stock |
113 | 97 | 113 | 95 | ||||||||
|
CIPS: |
||||||||||||
|
Long-term debt (including current portion) |
$ | 421 | $ | 436 | $ | 421 | $ | 436 | ||||
|
Preferred stock |
50 | 31 | 50 | 31 | ||||||||
|
Genco: |
||||||||||||
|
Long-term debt (including current portion) |
$ | 1,023 | $ | 1,069 | $ | 1,023 | $ | 1,046 | ||||
|
CILCO: |
||||||||||||
|
Long-term debt (including current portion) |
$ | 279 | $ | 313 | $ | 279 | $ | 311 | ||||
|
Preferred stock |
19 | 15 | 19 | 15 | ||||||||
|
IP: |
||||||||||||
|
Long-term debt (including current portion) |
$ | 1,147 | $ | 1,327 | $ | 1,147 | $ | 1,295 | ||||
|
Preferred stock |
46 | 35 | 46 | 35 | ||||||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
| (b) | Preferred stock along with the 20% noncontrolling interest of EEI is recorded in Noncontrolling Interests on the balance sheet. |
|
|||
NOTE 8 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The Ameren Companies have engaged in, and may in the future engage in, affiliate transactions in the normal course of business. These transactions primarily consist of gas and power purchases and sales, services received or rendered, and borrowings and lendings. Transactions between affiliates are reported as intercompany transactions on their financial statements, but are eliminated in consolidation for Ameren’s financial statements. For a discussion of our material related party agreements, see Note 14 - Related Party Transactions under Part II, Item 8 of the Form 10-K.
Electric Power Supply Agreements
The following table presents the amount of physical gigawatthour sales under related party electric power supply agreements for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
| Three Months | ||||
| 2010 | 2009 | |||
|
Genco sales to Marketing Company(a) |
5,437 | 5,321 | ||
|
AERG sales to Marketing Company(a) |
1,989 | 1,384 | ||
|
Marketing Company sales to CIPS(b) |
190 | 446 | ||
|
Marketing Company sales to CILCO(b) |
95 | 208 | ||
|
Marketing Company sales to IP(b) |
330 | 621 | ||
| (a) | Both Genco and AERG have a power supply agreement with Marketing Company whereby Genco and AERG sell and Marketing Company purchases all the capacity and energy available from Genco’s and AERG’s generation fleets. |
| (b) | Marketing Company contracted with CIPS, CILCO, and IP to provide power based on the results of the September 2006 Illinois power procurement auction. The values in this table reflect the physical sales volumes provided in that agreement. |
Capacity Supply Agreements
CIPS, CILCO and IP, as electric load serving entities, must acquire capacity sufficient to meet their obligations to customers. In 2010, the Ameren Illinois Utilities used a RFP process, administered by the IPA, to contract capacity for the period from June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2013. Both Marketing Company and UE were winning suppliers in the Ameren Illinois Utilities’ capacity RFP process. In April 2010, Marketing Company contracted to supply capacity to the Ameren Illinois Utilities for $1 million, $2 million, and $3 million for the twelve months ending May 31, 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively. In April 2010, UE contracted to supply capacity to the Ameren Illinois Utilities for less than $1 million for the entire period from June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2013.
Joint Ownership Agreement
AITC and IP have a joint ownership agreement to construct, own, operate, and maintain certain electric transmission assets in Illinois. Under the terms of this agreement, IP and AITC are responsible for their applicable share of all costs related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of electric transmission systems. Through this joint ownership agreement, IP has a variable interest in AITC, but IP is not the primary beneficiary. Ameren is the primary beneficiary of AITC, and therefore consolidates AITC.
Collateral Postings
Under the terms of the power supply agreements between Marketing Company and the Ameren Illinois Utilities, which were entered into as part of the September 2006 Illinois power procurement auction, collateral must be posted by Marketing Company under certain market conditions to protect the Ameren Illinois Utilities in the event of nonperformance by Marketing Company. The collateral postings are unilateral, meaning that Marketing Company as the supplier is the only counterparty required to post collateral. At March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, there were no collateral postings required of Marketing Company related to the 2006 auction power supply agreements.
Under the terms of the 2009 Illinois power procurement agreements entered into through a RFP process administered by the IPA, suppliers must post collateral under certain market conditions to protect the Ameren Illinois Utilities in the event of nonperformance. The collateral postings are unilateral, meaning only the suppliers would be required to post collateral. Therefore, UE, as a winning supplier of capacity, and Marketing Company, as a winning supplier of capacity and financial energy swaps, may be required to post collateral. As of March 31, 2010, there were no collateral postings required of UE or Marketing Company related to the 2009 Illinois power procurement agreements.
Money Pools
See Note 3 - Credit Facility Borrowings and Liquidity for a discussion of affiliate borrowing arrangements.
Intercompany Borrowings
Genco’s $45 million subordinated note payable to CIPS associated with the transfer in 2000 of CIPS’ electric generating assets and related liabilities to Genco matured on May 1, 2010. Interest income and expense for this note recorded by CIPS and Genco, respectively, was $1 million (2009 - $2 million) for the three months ended March 31, 2010.
CILCO (AERG) had outstanding borrowings from Ameren of $245 million at March 31, 2010, and had outstanding borrowings directly from Ameren of $288 million at December 31, 2009. The average interest rate on CILCO’s (AERG) borrowings from Ameren was 6% for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (2009 - 1.7%). CILCO (AERG) recorded interest expense of $4 million for these borrowings for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (2009 - less than $1 million).
Genco (EEI) had outstanding borrowings from Ameren of $109 million at March 31, 2010, and had outstanding borrowings from Ameren of $131 million at December 31, 2009. The average interest rate on Genco’s (EEI) borrowings from Ameren was 3% for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (2009 - 1%). Genco (EEI) recorded interest expense of $1 million for these borrowings for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (2009 - less than $1 million).
The following table presents the impact on UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO, and IP of related party transactions for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009. It is based primarily on the agreements discussed above and in Note 14 - Related Party Transactions under Part II, Item 8 of the Form 10-K, and the money pool arrangements discussed in Note 3 - Credit Facility Borrowings and Liquidity of this report.
| Three Months | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Agreement | Income Statement Line Item | UE | CIPS | Genco | CILCO | IP | |||||||||||||||||
|
Genco and AERG power supply |
Operating Revenues | 2010 | $ | (a | ) | $ | (a | ) | $ | 264 | $ 92 | $ | (a | ) | |||||||||
|
agreements with Marketing Company |
2009 | (a | ) | (a | ) | 288 | 93 | (a | ) | ||||||||||||||
|
UE ancillary services and capacity |
Operating Revenues | 2010 | (c | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | |||||||||||
|
agreements with CIPS, CILCO and IP |
2009 | (c | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | ||||||||||||
|
UE and Genco gas transportation |
Operating Revenues | 2010 | (c | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | |||||||||||
|
agreement |
2009 | (c | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | ||||||||||||
|
Genco gas sales to Medina Valley |
Operating Revenues | 2010 | (a | ) | (a | ) | 1 | (a | ) | (a | ) | ||||||||||||
| 2009 | (a | ) | (a | ) | 1 | (a | ) | (a | ) | ||||||||||||||
|
CILCO support services(b) |
Operating Revenues | 2010 | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | 21 | (a | ) | ||||||||||||
| 2009 | (a | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | 16 | (a | ) | ||||||||||||||
|
Total Operating Revenues |
2010 | $ | (c | ) | $ | (a | ) | $ | 265 | $ 113 | $ | (a | ) | ||||||||||
| 2009 | (c | ) | (a | ) | 289 | 109 | (a | ) | |||||||||||||||
|
UE and Genco gas transportation |
Fuel | 2010 | $ | (a | ) | $ | (a | ) | $ | (c | ) | $ (a | ) | $ | (a | ) | |||||||
|
agreement |
2009 | (a | ) | (a | ) | (c | ) | (a | ) | (a | ) | ||||||||||||
|
CIPS, CILCO and IP agreements with |
Purchased Power | 2010 | $ | (a | ) | $ | 23 | $ | (a | ) | $ 12 | $ | 38 | ||||||||||
|
Marketing Company |
2009 | (a | ) | 41 | (a | ) | 20 | 59 | |||||||||||||||
|
CIPS, CILCO and IP ancillary services and |
Purchased Power | 2010 | (a | ) | (c | ) | (a | ) | (c | ) | (c | ) | |||||||||||
|
capacity agreements with UE |
2009 | (a | ) | (c | ) | (a | ) | (c | ) | (c | ) | ||||||||||||
|
Ancillary services agreement with |
Purchased Power | 2010 | (a | ) | - | (a | ) | - | - | ||||||||||||||
|
Marketing Company |
2009 | (a | ) | (c | ) | (a | ) | (c | ) | (c | ) | ||||||||||||
|
Total Purchased Power |
2010 | $ | (a | ) | $ | 23 | $ | (a | ) | $ 12 | $ | 38 | |||||||||||
| 2009 | (a | ) | 41 | (a | ) | 22 | 59 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Ameren Services support services |
Other Operations and | 2010 | $ | 35 | $ | 8 | $ | 7 | $ 8 | $ | 14 | ||||||||||||
|
agreement |
Maintenance | 2009 | 32 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||
|
CILCO support services |
Other Operations and | 2010 | (a | ) | 6 | (a | ) | (a | ) | 9 | |||||||||||||
| Maintenance | 2009 | (a | ) | 5 | (a | ) | (a | ) | 7 | ||||||||||||||
|
AFS support services agreement |
Other Operations and | 2010 | 1 | (c | ) | 1 | (c | ) | (c | ) | |||||||||||||
| Maintenance | 2009 | 2 | (c | ) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Insurance premiums(d) |
Other Operations and | 2010 | 1 | (a | ) | - | - | (a | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Maintenance | 2009 | 1 | (a | ) | (c | ) | (c | ) | (a | ) | |||||||||||||
|
Total Other Operations and |
2010 | $ | 37 | $ | 14 | $ | 8 | $ 8 | $ | 23 | |||||||||||||
|
Maintenance Expenses |
2009 | 35 | 12 | 7 | 11 | 20 | |||||||||||||||||
|
Money pool borrowings (advances) |
Interest Charges | 2010 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | (c | ) | $ - | $ | - | |||||||||||
| 2009 | - | (c | ) | (c | ) | 1 | (c | ) | |||||||||||||||
| (a) | Not applicable. |
| (b) | Includes revenues relating to property and plant additions of $4 million at IP and $2 million at CIPS (2009 - $3 million at IP and $1 million at CIPS). |
| (c) | Amount less than $1 million. |
| (d) | Represents insurance premiums paid to an affiliate for replacement power, property damage and terrorism coverage. |
|
|||
NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
We are involved in legal, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, and governmental agencies with respect to matters that arise in the ordinary course of business, some of which involve substantial amounts of money. We believe that the final disposition of these proceedings, except as otherwise disclosed in the notes to our financial statements, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
Reference is made to Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Note 2 - Rate and Regulatory Matters, Note 14 - Related Party Transactions, and Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies under Part II, Item 8 of the Form 10-K. See also Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, Note 2 - Rate and Regulatory Matters, Note 8 - Related Party Transactions and Note 10 - Callaway Nuclear Plant in this report.
Callaway Nuclear Plant
The following table presents insurance coverage at UE’s Callaway nuclear plant at March 31, 2010. The property coverage and the nuclear liability coverage must be renewed on October 1 and January 1, respectively, of each year.
| Type and Source of Coverage | Maximum Coverages | Maximum Assessments for Single Incidents |
||||||
|
Public liability and nuclear worker liability: |
||||||||
|
American Nuclear Insurers |
$ | 375 | $ | - | ||||
|
Pool participation |
12,219 | (a) | 118 | (b) | ||||
| $ | 12,594 | (c) | $ | 118 | ||||
|
Property damage: |
||||||||
|
Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. |
$ | 2,750 | (d) | $ | 23 | |||
|
Replacement power: |
||||||||
|
Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd |
$ | 490 | (e) | $ | 9 | |||
|
Energy Risk Assurance Company |
$ | 64 | (f) | $ | - | |||
| (a) | Provided through mandatory participation in an industry-wide retrospective premium assessment program. |
| (b) | Retrospective premium under Price-Anderson. This is subject to retrospective assessment with respect to a covered loss in excess of $375 million in the event of an incident at any licensed U.S. commercial reactor, payable at $17.5 million per year. |
| (c) | Limit of liability for each incident under the Price-Anderson liability provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. A company could be assessed up to $118 million per incident for each licensed reactor it operates with a maximum of $17.5 million per incident to be paid in a calendar year for each reactor. This limit is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and changes in the number of licensed reactors. |
| (d) | Provides for $500 million in property damage and decontamination, excess property insurance, and premature decommissioning coverage up to $2.25 billion for losses in excess of the $500 million primary coverage. |
| (e) | Provides the replacement power cost insurance in the event of a prolonged accidental outage at our nuclear plant. Weekly indemnity of $4.5 million for 52 weeks, which commences after the first eight weeks of an outage, plus $3.6 million per week for 71.1 weeks thereafter. |
| (f) | Provides the replacement power cost insurance in the event of a prolonged accidental outage at our nuclear plant. The coverage commences after the first 52 weeks of insurance coverage from Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. and is for a weekly indemnity of $900,000 for 71 weeks in excess of the $3.6 million per week set forth above. Energy Risk Assurance Company is an affiliate and has reinsured this coverage with third-party insurance companies. See Note 8 - Related Party Transactions for more information on this affiliate transaction. |
The Price-Anderson Act is a federal law that limits the liability for claims from an incident involving any licensed United States commercial nuclear power facility. The limit is based on the number of licensed reactors. The limit of liability and the maximum potential annual payments are adjusted at least every five years for inflation to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The five-year inflationary adjustment as prescribed by the most recent Price-Anderson Act renewal was effective October 29, 2008. Owners of a nuclear reactor cover this exposure through a combination of private insurance and mandatory participation in a financial protection pool, as established by Price-Anderson.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. confirmed that losses resulting from terrorist attacks would be covered under its policies. However, Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. imposed an industry-wide aggregate policy limit of $3.24 billion within a 12-month period for coverage for such terrorist acts.
If losses from a nuclear incident at the Callaway nuclear plant exceed the limits of, or are not subject to, insurance, or if coverage is unavailable, UE is at risk for any uninsured losses. If a serious nuclear incident were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on Ameren’s and UE’s results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
Other Obligations
To supply a portion of the fuel requirements of our generating plants, we have entered into various long-term commitments for the procurement of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel. We have also entered into various long-term commitments for the purchase of electric capacity and natural gas for distribution. For a complete listing of our obligations and commitments, see Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies under Part II, Item 8 of the Form 10-K.
Our commitments for the procurement of nuclear fuel have materially changed from amounts previously disclosed as of December 31, 2009. The following table presents our total estimated nuclear purchase commitments at March 31, 2010:
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Thereafter | |||||||||||||
|
Ameren |
$ | 61 | $ | 38 | $ | 53 | $ | 56 | $ | 119 | $ | 384 | ||||||
|
UE |
61 | 38 | 53 | 56 | 119 | 384 | ||||||||||||
Ameren Illinois Utilities’ Purchased Power Agreements
In January 2009, the ICC approved the electric power procurement plan filed by the IPA for both the Ameren Illinois Utilities and Commonwealth Edison Company. As a result, in the second quarter of 2009, the IPA procured electric capacity, financial energy swaps, and renewable energy credits through a RFP process on behalf of the Ameren Illinois Utilities. Electric capacity was procured in April 2009 for the period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2012. The Ameren Illinois Utilities contracted to purchase between 800 and 3,500 MW of capacity per month at an average price of approximately $41 per MW-day over the three-year period. Financial energy swaps were procured in May 2009 for the period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2011. The Ameren Illinois Utilities contracted to purchase approximately ten million megawatthours of financial energy swaps at an average price of approximately $36 per megawatthour. Renewable energy credits were procured in May 2009 for the period June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. The Ameren Illinois Utilities contracted to purchase 720,000 credits at an average price of approximately $16 per credit.
In December 2009, the ICC approved the electric power procurement plan filed by the IPA for both the Ameren Illinois Utilities and Commonwealth Edison Company that covers the period from June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2013. As a result, the IPA procured electric capacity through a RFP process on behalf of the Ameren Illinois Utilities. Electric capacity was procured in April 2010. The Ameren Illinois Utilities contracted to purchase between 810 and 2,190 MW of capacity per month at an average price of approximately $246 per MW-month ($8 per MW-day) over the three-year period. Starting with the 2010 RFP, electric capacity was contracted per MW-month instead of MW-day as it was in the 2009 RFP. An RFP process to procure financial energy swaps took place in early May 2010. Marketing Company was a winning bidder to enter into financial contracts with the Ameren Illinois Utilities. The Ameren Illinois Utilities are currently evaluating the results and finalizing the financial contracts. The RFP process to procure renewable energy credits will be completed during the second quarter of 2010.
The following table presents the Ameren Illinois Utilities’ commitments for these contracts at March 31, 2010:
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | ||||||||||
|
Electric Capacity |
$ | 27 | $ | 29 | $ | 8 | $ | (a | ) | ||||
|
Financial energy swaps |
127 | 56 | - | - | |||||||||
|
Renewable energy credits |
4 | - | - | - | |||||||||
| (a) | Less than $1 million |
Environmental Matters
We are subject to various environmental laws and regulations enforced by federal, state and local authorities. From the beginning phases of siting and development to the ongoing operation of existing or new electric generating, transmission and distribution facilities, and existing or new natural gas storage, transmission, and distribution facilities, our activities involve compliance with diverse laws and regulations. These laws and regulations address noise, emissions, impacts to air, land and water, protected and cultural resources (such as wetlands, endangered species, and archeological and historical resources), and chemical and waste handling. Complex and lengthy processes are required to obtain approvals, permits or licenses for new, existing, or modified facilities. Additionally, the use and handling of various chemicals or hazardous materials (including wastes) requires release prevention plans and emergency response procedures. As new laws or regulations are promulgated, we assess their applicability and implement the necessary modifications to our facilities or our operations. The more significant matters are discussed below.
Clean Air Act
Both federal and state laws require significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions that result from burning fossil fuels. In March 2005, the EPA issued regulations with respect to SO2 and NO x emissions (the Clean Air Interstate Rule) and mercury emissions (the Clean Air Mercury Rule). The federal Clean Air Interstate Rule requires generating facilities in 28 eastern states, which include Missouri and Illinois, where our generating facilities are located, and the District of Columbia to participate in cap-and-trade programs to reduce annual SO2 emissions, annual NOx emissions, and ozone season NOx emissions. The cap-and-trade program for both annual and ozone season NOx emissions went into effect on January 1, 2009. The SO2 emissions cap-and-trade program went into effect on January 1, 2010.
In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision that vacated the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule. The court ruled that the EPA erred in the method it used to remove electric generating units from the list of sources subject to the MACT requirements under the Clean Air Act. In February 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for review filed by a group representing the electric utility industry. The impact of this decision is that the EPA will move forward with a MACT standard for mercury emissions and other hazardous air pollutants, such as acid gases. In a consent order, the EPA agreed to propose the MACT regulation by March 2011 and finalize the regulation by November 2011. Compliance is expected to be required in 2015. We cannot predict at this time the estimated capital or operating costs for compliance with such future environmental rules.
In December 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded the Clean Air Interstate Rule to the EPA for further action to remedy the rule’s flaws in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals’ July 2008 opinion in the case. The impact of the decision is that the existing Illinois and Missouri rules to implement the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule will remain in effect until the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule is revised by the EPA, at which point the Illinois and Missouri rules may be subject to change. The EPA has stated that it expects to issue a new proposed version of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2010 and a final version in 2011.
The state of Missouri has adopted rules to implement the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule for regulating SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generating units. The rules are a significant part of Missouri’s plan to attain existing ambient standards for ozone and fine particulates, as well as meeting the federal Clean Air Visibility Rule. The rules are expected to reduce NOx emissions by 30% and SO2 emissions by 75% by 2015. As a result of the Missouri rules, UE will use allowances and install pollution control equipment. UE’s costs to comply with SO2 emission reductions required by the Clean Air Interstate Rule could increase materially if the EPA determines that existing allowances granted to sources under the Acid Rain Program cannot be used for compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule or if a new allowance program is mandated by revisions to the Clean Air Interstate Rule. Missouri also adopted rules to implement the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule. However, these rules are not enforceable as a result of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision to vacate the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule.
We do not believe that the court decision that vacated the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule will significantly affect pollution control obligations in Illinois in the near term. Under the MPS, as amended, Illinois generators may defer until 2015 the requirement to reduce mercury emissions by 90%, in exchange for accelerated installation of NO x and SO2 controls. This rule, when fully implemented, is expected to reduce mercury emissions by 90%, NOx emissions by 50%, and SO2 emissions by 70% by 2015 in Illinois. To comply with the rule, Genco and CILCO (AERG) have begun installing equipment designed to reduce mercury, NOx, and SO2 emissions. In 2009, CILCO (AERG) completed the installation of a scrubber at its Duck Creek plant, and Genco completed the installation of a scrubber at its Coffeen plant. Genco and CILCO (AERG) will also need to install additional pollution control equipment. Current plans include installing scrubbers at Genco’s Newton plant by 2015, as well as optimizing operations of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems for NOx reduction at Genco’s Coffeen plant and CILCO (AERG)’s Edwards and Duck Creek plants. Genco is planning to use dry sorbent injection SO2 reduction technology on all coal-fired units at the Joppa plant, rather than installing scrubbers on half of the units. Capital requirements for dry sorbent injection are lower than scrubbers. Several projects are planned to handle the solid and liquid wastes generated by the SO2 scrubbers at the Duck Creek and Coffeen plants. Additional facilities and upgrades are planned at all plants to meet the 2015 mercury control requirements.
Due, in part, to operational changes and strong performance levels from pollution control equipment, Ameren’s Merchant Generation segment reduced in the first quarter of 2010 its estimated capital costs to comply with state air quality implementation plans, the MPS, federal ambient air quality standards including ozone and fine particulates, and the federal Clean Air Visibility rule. The Merchant Generation segment’s estimated capital costs in the table below are $425 million lower compared to estimates in the Form 10-K. These estimates contain all of the known capital costs for the Merchant Generation segment to comply with existing and known emissions-related regulations as of March 31, 2010. The estimates shown in the table below could change depending upon additional federal or state requirements, the requirements under a MACT standard, new technology, and variations in costs of material or labor, or alternative compliance strategies, among other factors.
| 2010 | 2011 - 2014 | 2015 - 2017 | Total | |||||||||||||||||
|
UE(a) |
$ 160 | $ 170 |
- |
$ 215 | $ 25 | - | $ 35 | $ 355 | - | $ 410 | ||||||||||
|
Genco |
90 | 565 |
- |
660 | 80 | - | 90 | 735 | - | 840 | ||||||||||
|
CILCO (AERG) |
5 |
125 |
- |
160 | 15 | - | 20 | 145 | - | 185 | ||||||||||
|
Ameren |
$ 255 | $ 860 |
- |
$ 1,035 | $ 120 | - | $ 145 | $ 1,235 | - | $ 1,435 | ||||||||||
| (a) | UE’s expenditures are expected to be recoverable from ratepayers. |
UE’s estimate of capital spending to comply with existing regulations remains consistent with its disclosure included in the Form 10-K.
In March 2008, the EPA finalized regulations that would lower the ambient standard for ozone. In September 2009, EPA announced its plan to revise the ozone standard to a level lower than the level set in the March 2008 regulation. The revised standard is expected to be finalized in August 2010. Illinois and Missouri are required to submit recommendations to the EPA for designating nonattainment areas and implementation plans will need to be submitted in 2013 unless the states seek extensions for various requirement dates. Additional emission reductions may be required as a result of future state implementation plans. At this time, we are unable to determine the impact that state implementation plans for such regulations would have on our results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.
Emission Allowances
Both federal and state laws require significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions that result from burning fossil fuels. The Clean Air Act created marketable commodities called allowances under the Acid Rain Program, the NOx Budget Trading Program, and the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule. All existing generating facilities have been allocated SO2 and NOx allowances based on past production and the statutory emission reduction goals. NOx allowances allocated under the NOx Budget Trading Program can be used for the seasonal NO x program under the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule. Our generating facilities comply with the SO2 limits through the use and purchase of allowances, through the use of low-sulfur fuels, and through the application of pollution control technology. Our generating facilities comply with the NOx limits through the use and purchase of allowances and through the application of pollution control technology, including low-NOx burners, over-fire air systems, combustion optimization, rich-reagent injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, and selective catalytic reduction systems.
See Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies for the SO2 and NOx emission allowances held and the related SO2 and NOx emission allowance book values that were classified as intangible assets as of March 31, 2010.
UE, Genco, and CILCO (AERG) expect to use a substantial portion of their SO2 and NOx allowances for ongoing operations. Environmental regulations, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule, the timing of the installation of pollution control equipment, and the level of operations, will have a significant impact on the number of allowances actually required for ongoing operations. The Clean Air Interstate Rule requires a reduction in SO2 emissions by increasing the ratio of Acid Rain Program allowances surrendered. The current Acid Rain Program requires the surrender of one SO2 allowance for every ton of SO2 emitted. Unless revised by the EPA as a result of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ remand, the Clean Air Interstate Rule program requires that SO2 allowances of vintages 2010 through 2014 be surrendered at a ratio of two allowances for every ton of emission. SO2 allowances with vintages of 2015 and beyond will be required to be surrendered at a ratio of 2.86 allowances for every ton of emission. In order to accommodate this change in surrender ratio and to comply with the federal and state regulations, UE, Genco, and CILCO (AERG) expect to install control technology designed to further reduce SO2 emissions, as discussed above.
The Clean Air Interstate Rule has both an ozone season program and an annual program for regulating NOx emissions, with separate allowances issued for each program. The Clean Air Interstate Rule ozone season program replaced the NOx Budget Trading Program beginning in 2009. Allocations for UE’s Missouri generating facilities for the years 2009 through 2014 were 11,665 tons per ozone season and 26,842 tons annually. Allocations for Genco’s generating facility in Missouri were one ton for the ozone season and three tons annually. Allocations for UE’s, Genco’s and CILCO’s (AERG) Illinois generating facilities for the years 2010 and 2011 were 90, 5,200, and 1,368 tons per ozone season, respectively, and 93, 12,867, and 3,419 tons annually, respectively.
Global Climate Change
In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed energy legislation entitled “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” that, if enacted, would establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. The overarching goal of this proposed cap-and-trade program is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from capped sources, including coal-fired electric generation units, to 3% below 2005 levels by 2012, 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels by the year 2050. The proposed legislation provides an allocation of free emission allowances and greenhouse gas offsets to utilities, as well as certain merchant coal-fired electric generators in competitive markets. This aspect of the proposed legislation would mitigate some of the cost of compliance for the Ameren Companies. However, the amount of free allowances decline over time and are ultimately phased out. The proposed legislation also contains, among other things, a federal renewable energy standard of 6% by 2012 that increases gradually to 20% by 2020, of which up to 25% of the requirement can be met by energy efficiency. The proposed legislation also establishes performance standards for new coal plants, requires electric utilities to develop plans to support plug-in hybrid vehicles, and requires load-serving entities to reduce peak electric demand through energy efficiency and Smart Grid technologies. In September 2009, climate change legislation entitled “The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” was introduced in the U.S. Senate that was similar to that passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009, although it proposes a slightly greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2020 and grants fewer emission allowances to the electricity sector. Under both proposed pieces of legislation, large sources of CO2 emissions will be required to obtain and retire an allowance for each ton of CO2 emitted. The allowances may be allocated to the sources without cost, sold to the sources through auctions or other mechanisms, or traded among parties. “The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” was voted out of committee in November 2009. In December 2009, Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman introduced a framework for Senate legislation in 2010. The framework lacks specifics, but reports suggest it is consistent with the House-passed legislation except that it emphasizes the need for greater support for nuclear power and energy independence through support for clean energy and drilling for oil and natural gas. In addition, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has been identified as a high priority by President Obama’s administration. Although we cannot predict the date of enactment or the requirements of any future climate change legislation or regulations, we believe it is possible that some form of federal legislation or regulations to control emissions of greenhouse gases will become law during the current administration.
Potential impacts from climate change legislation could vary, depending upon proposed CO2 emission limits, the timing of implementation of those limits, the method of distributing allowances, the degree to which offsets are allowed and available, and provisions for cost containment measures, such as a “safety valve” provision that provides a maximum price for emission allowances. As a result of our diverse fuel portfolio, our emissions of greenhouse gases vary among our generating facilities, but coal-fired power plants are significant sources of CO2, a principal greenhouse gas. Ameren’s analysis shows that if either “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” or “The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” were enacted into law in their current form, household costs and rates for electricity could rise significantly. The burden could fall particularly hard on electricity consumers and upon the economy in the Midwest because of the region’s reliance on electricity generated by coal-fired power plants. Natural gas emits about half the amount of CO2 that coal emits when burned to produce electricity. As a result, economy-wide shifts favoring natural gas as a fuel source for electricity generation also could affect the cost of heating for our utility customers and many industrial processes. Ameren believes that wholesale natural gas costs could rise significantly as well. Higher costs for energy could contribute to reduced demand for electricity and natural gas.
In early December of 2009, representatives from countries around the globe met in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attempt to develop an international treaty to supersede the Kyoto Protocol, which set mandatory greenhouse gas reduction requirements for participating countries. The parties were unable to reach agreement regarding mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reductions. However, certain countries, including the United States, entered into an agreement called the “Copenhagen Accord.” The Copenhagen Accord provides a mechanism for countries to make economy-wide greenhouse gas emission mitigation commitments for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and provides for developed countries to fund greenhouse gas emissions mitigation projects in developing countries. Any commitment under the Copenhagen Accord is subject to congressional action on climate change.
Additional requirements to control greenhouse gas emissions and address global climate change may also arise pursuant to the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, an agreement signed by the governors of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota to develop a strategy to achieve energy security and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade mechanism. The advisory group to the Midwest governors provided draft final recommendations on the design of a greenhouse gas reduction program in June 2009. In October 2009, the Midwestern Governors Association held a forum to review some of the advisory group’s recommendations. The October 2009 forum did not yield any significant updates to the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord’s work toward a cap-and-trade mechanism. The recommendations have not been endorsed or approved by the individual state governors. It is uncertain whether legislation to implement the recommendations will be passed by any of the states, including Illinois.
With regard to the control of greenhouse gas emissions under federal regulation, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision finding that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases from automobiles as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. This decision required the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or, in the alternative, to provide a reasonable explanation as to why greenhouse gas emissions should not be regulated. In December 2009, in response to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the EPA issued its “endangerment finding” determining that greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, endanger human health and welfare and that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment. In April 2010, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued final rules requiring car makers to meet a new greenhouse gas emission standard for model year 2012 cars. In March 2010, the EPA issued a determination that greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources would be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act in 2011. As a result of these actions, we will be required to consider the emissions of greenhouse gas in any air permit application submitted by us or pending after January 1, 2011.
Recognizing the difficulties presented by regulating at once virtually all emitters of greenhouse gases, the EPA announced in September 2009 a proposed rule, known as the “tailoring rule,” that would establish new higher thresholds for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants. The rule would require any source that emits at least 25,000 tons per year of greenhouse gases measured as CO2 equivalents (CO2e) to have an operating permit under Title V Operating Permit Program of the Clean Air Act. Sources that already have an operating permit would have greenhouse gas-specific provisions added to their permits upon renewal. Currently, all Ameren power plants have operating permits that, depending on the final rule, may be modified when they are renewed to address greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed tailoring rule also provides that if physical changes or changes in operation at major sources result in an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases over a threshold ranging from 10,000 tons to 25,000 tons of CO2e, the emitters would be required to obtain a permit under the NSR/Prevention of Significant Deterioration program and to install the best available control technology to control greenhouse gas emissions. New major sources also would be required to obtain such a permit and to install the best available control technology. The EPA has committed to provide guidance about the best available control technology for new and modified major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The tailoring rule has been delayed but is expected to be finalized in May 2010. Any federal climate change legislation that is enacted may preempt the proposed rule, particularly as it relates to power plant greenhouse gas emissions. This proposed rule has no immediate impact on Ameren’s, UE’s, Genco’s or CILCO’s (AERG) generating facilities. The extent to which this proposed rule, if finalized, could have a material impact on our generating facilities depends upon future EPA guidelines as to what constitutes the best available control technology for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, whether physical changes or change in operations subject to the rule would occur at our power plants, and whether federal legislation that preempts the proposed rule is passed.
While the EPA has stated its intention to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants, Congressional action could block that effort. Legislation has been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from both mobile and stationary sources. Separate legislation has also been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that would delay the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources for two years. The final outcome of this legislation is uncertain.
The EPA also finalized regulations in September 2009 that would require certain categories of businesses, including fossil-fuel-fired power plants, to monitor and report their annual greenhouse gas emissions, beginning in January 2011 for 2010 emissions. CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants subject to the Clean Air Act’s acid rain program have been monitored and reported for over fifteen years. Thus, this new rule covering greenhouse gas emissions is not expected to have a material effect on our operations. It will require additional reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from various gas operations and possibly other minor sources within our system.
Recent federal appellate court decisions have considered the application of common law causes of action, such as nuisance, to redress damages resulting from global climate change. In State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power (“AEP”), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in September 2009 that public nuisance claims brought by states, New York City and public land trusts could proceed and were not beyond the scope of judicial relief. Ameren’s generating plants were not named in the AEP litigation. In Comer v. Murphy Oil (“Comer”), a Mississippi property owner sued several industrial companies, alleging that CO2 emissions created the atmospheric conditions that resulted in Hurricane Katrina. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in Comer in October 2009 that permits this cause of action to proceed. Comer is seeking class action certification on behalf of similarly situated property owners. Additional legal challenges and appeals are expected in both the Comer and AEP cases. The rulings in these cases may spur other claimants to file suit against greenhouse gas emitters, including Ameren. The courts did not rule on the merits of the lawsuits, only that plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims. Under some of the versions of greenhouse gas legislation currently pending in Congress, nuisance claims could be rendered moot. We are unable to predict the outcome of lawsuits seeking damages that litigants claim are attributable to climate change and their impact on our results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.
Future federal and state legislation or regulations that mandate limits on the emission of greenhouse gases would result in significant increases in capital expenditures and operating costs, which, in turn, could lead to increased liquidity needs and higher financing costs. Moreover, to the extent we request recovery of these costs through rates, our regulators might deny some or all of, or defer timely recovery of, these costs. Excessive costs to comply with future legislation or regulations might force UE, Genco and CILCO (through AERG) as well as other similarly situated electric power generators to close some coal-fired facilities and could lead to possible impairment of assets and reduced revenues. As a result, mandatory limits could have a material adverse impact on Ameren’s, UE’s, Genco’s, and AERG’s results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.
The impact on us of future initiatives related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change is unknown. Although compliance costs are unlikely in the near future, federal legislative, federal regulatory and state-sponsored initiatives to control greenhouse gases continue to progress, making it more likely that some form of greenhouse gas emissions control will eventually be required. Since these initiatives continue to evolve, the impact on our coal-fired generation plants and our customers’ costs is unknown, but any impact would likely be negative. Our costs of complying with any mandated federal or state greenhouse gas program could have a material impact on our future results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.
NSR and Notice of Violation
The EPA is engaged in an enforcement initiative targeted at coal-fired power plants in the United States to determine whether those power plants failed to comply with the requirements of the NSR and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) provisions under the Clean Air Act when the plants implemented modifications. The EPA’s inquiries focus on whether projects performed at power plants should have triggered various permitting requirements and the installation of pollution control equipment.
In April 2005, Genco received a request from the EPA for information pursuant to Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. It sought detailed operating and maintenance history data with respect to Genco’s Coffeen, Hutsonville, Meredosia, and Newton facilities, EEI’s Joppa facility, and AERG’s E.D. Edwards and Duck Creek facilities. In 2006, the EPA issued a second Section 114(a) request to Genco regarding projects at the Newton facility. All of these facilities are coal-fired power plants. In September 2008, the EPA issued a third Section 114(a) request regarding projects at all of Ameren’s Illinois coal-fired power plants. In May 2009, we completed our response to the most recent information request, but we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In January 2010, UE received a Notice of Violation from the EPA alleging violations of the Clean Air Act’s NSR and Title V programs. In the Notice of Violation, the EPA contends that various maintenance, repair and replacement projects at UE’s Labadie, Meramec, Rush Island, and Sioux coal-fired power plant facilities, dating back to the mid-1990s, triggered NSR requirements. The EPA alleges that UE violated the Title V operating permit program by failing to address such NSR requirements in its operating permits or applications for those permits. If litigation regarding this matter occurs, it could take many years to resolve the underlying issues alleged in the Notice of Violation. UE believes its defenses to the allegations described in the Notice of Violation are meritorious and will defend itself vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.
Ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse impact on the future results of operations, financial position, and liquidity of Ameren, UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG). A resolution could result in increased capital expenditures for the installation of control technology, increased operations and maintenance expenses, and fines or penalties.
Clean Water Act
In July 2004, the EPA issued rules under the Clean Water Act that require cooling-water intake structures to have the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts on aquatic species. These rules pertain to all existing generating facilities that currently employ a cooling-water intake structure whose flow exceeds 50 million gallons per day. The rules may require facilities to install additional technology on their cooling water intakes or take other protective measures and to do extensive site-specific study and monitoring. There is also the possibility that the rules may lead to the installation of cooling towers on some of our generating facilities. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can compare the costs of technology for protecting aquatic species to the benefits of that technology in order to establish the “best technology available” standards applicable to the cooling water intake structure at existing power plants under the Clean Water Act. The EPA is expected to propose revised rules in 2010. Until the EPA reissues the rules and such rules are adopted, and until the studies on the aquatic impacts of the power plants are completed, we are unable to estimate the costs of complying with these rules. Such costs are not expected to be incurred prior to 2012. All major generation facilities at UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG) with cooling water systems could be subject to these new regulations.
Remediation
We are involved in a number of remediation actions to clean up hazardous waste sites as required by federal and state law. Such statutes require that responsible parties fund remediation actions regardless of their degree of fault, the legality of original disposal, or the ownership of a disposal site. UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP have each been identified by the federal or state governments as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at several contaminated sites. Several of these sites involve facilities that were transferred by CIPS to Genco in May 2000 and facilities transferred by CILCO to AERG in October 2003. As part of each transfer, CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for remediation costs associated with preexisting environmental contamination at the transferred sites.
As of March 31, 2010, CIPS, CILCO and IP owned or were otherwise responsible for several former MGP sites in Illinois. CIPS has 15, CILCO has four, and IP has 25 sites. All of these sites are in various stages of investigation, evaluation, and remediation. Ameren currently anticipates completion of remediation at these sites by 2015, except for a CIPS site that is expected to be completed by 2017. The ICC permits each company to recover remediation and litigation costs associated with its former MGP sites from its Illinois electric and natural gas utility customers through environmental adjustment rate riders. To be recoverable, such costs must be prudently and properly incurred. Costs are subject to annual review by the ICC. As of March 31, 2010, estimated obligations were: CIPS - $43 million to $62 million, CILCO - less than $1 million, and IP - $111 million to $174 million. CIPS, CILCO and IP have liabilities of $43 million, less than $1 million, and $111 million, respectively, recorded to represent estimated minimum obligations, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate.
CIPS is also responsible for the cleanup of a former coal ash landfill in Coffeen, Illinois. As of March 31, 2010, CIPS estimated that obligation at $0.5 million to $6 million. CIPS recorded a liability of $0.5 million to represent its estimated minimum obligation for this site, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate. IP is also responsible for the cleanup of a landfill, underground storage tanks, and a water treatment plant in Illinois. As of March 31, 2010, IP recorded a liability of $0.8 million to represent its best estimate of the obligation for these sites.
In addition, UE owns or is otherwise responsible for 10 MGP sites in Missouri and one site in Iowa. UE does not currently have in effect in Missouri a rate rider mechanism that permits recovery of remediation costs associated with MGP sites from utility customers. UE does not have any retail utility operations in Iowa that would provide a source of recovery of these remediation costs. As of March 31, 2010, UE estimated its obligation at $3 million to $5 million. UE has a liability of $3 million recorded to represent its estimated minimum obligation for its MGP sites, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate.
UE also is responsible for four waste sites in Missouri that have corporate cleanup liability as a result of federal agency mandates. UE concluded cleanups at two of these sites, and no further remediation actions are anticipated at those two sites. One of the remaining waste sites for which UE has corporate cleanup responsibility is a former coal tar distillery located in St. Louis, Missouri. In July 2008, the EPA issued an administrative order to UE pertaining to this distillery operated by Koppers Company or its predecessor and successor companies. UE is the current owner of the site, but UE did not conduct any of the manufacturing operations involving coal tar or its byproducts. UE along with two other PRPs have reached an agreement with the EPA about the scope of the site investigation. The investigation will occur in 2010. As of March 31, 2010, UE estimated this obligation at $2 million to $5 million. UE has a liability of $2 million recorded to represent its estimated minimum obligation, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate.
In June 2000, the EPA notified UE and numerous other companies, including Solutia, that former landfills and lagoons in Sauget, Illinois, may contain soil and groundwater contamination. These sites are known as Sauget Area 2. From about 1926 until 1976, UE operated a power generating facility adjacent to Sauget Area 2. UE currently owns a parcel of property that was once used as a landfill. Under the terms of an Administrative Order and Consent, UE has joined with other PRPs to evaluate the extent of potential contamination with respect to Sauget Area 2.
The Sauget Area 2 investigations overseen by the EPA have been completed. The results have been submitted to the EPA, and a record of decision is expected in 2010. Once the EPA has selected a remedy, it will begin negotiations with various PRPs to implement it. Over the last several years, numerous other parties have joined the PRP group and all presumably will participate in the funding of any required remediation. In addition, Pharmacia Corporation and Monsanto Company have agreed to assume the liabilities related to Solutia’s former chemical waste landfill in the Sauget Area 2, notwithstanding Solutia’s filing for bankruptcy protection. As of March 31, 2010, UE estimated its obligation at $0.4 million to $10 million. UE has a liability of $0.4 million recorded to represent its estimated minimum obligation, as no other amount within the range was a better estimate.
In December 2004, AERG submitted a plan to the Illinois EPA to address groundwater and surface water issues associated with the recycle pond, ash ponds, and reservoir at the Duck Creek power plant facility. Information submitted by AERG is currently under review by the Illinois EPA. CILCO (AERG) has a liability of $3 million at March 31, 2010, for the estimated cost of the remediation effort, which involves discharging recycle-system water into the Duck Creek reservoir and the eventual closure of ash ponds in order to address these groundwater and surface water issues.
Our operations or those of our predecessor companies involve the use, disposal of, and in appropriate circumstances, the cleanup of substances regulated under environmental protection laws. We are unable to determine whether such practices will result in future environmental commitments or impact our results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
Ash Management
There has been increased activity at both state and federal levels regarding additional regulation of ash pond facilities and coal combustion byproducts (CCB). On May 4, 2010, the EPA announced proposed new regulations regarding the regulatory framework for the management and disposal of CCB, which could impact future disposal and handling costs at our power plant facilities. Those proposed regulations allow for the continued beneficial use, such as recycling, of CCB without classifying it as hazardous waste. As part of its proposal, the EPA is considering alternative regulatory approaches that require coal-fired power plants to either close surface impoundments such as ash ponds or retrofit such facilities with liners. The EPA is seeking public comment regarding the proposed rules before it selects a final regulatory framework for CCB. Additionally, in January 2010, EPA announced its intent to develop regulations establishing financial responsibility requirements for the electric generation industry, among other industries, and specifically discussed CCB as a reason for developing the new requirements. Ameren, UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG) are currently evaluating all of the proposed regulations to determine whether current management of CCB, including beneficial reuse, and the use of the ash ponds should be altered. Ameren, UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG) also are evaluating the potential costs associated with compliance with the proposed regulation of CCB impoundments and landfills which could be material, if adopted. Existing landfills used for the disposal of CCB would be subject to groundwater monitoring requirements and requirements related to the closure and post-closure care of the landfill.
In addition, the Illinois EPA has requested that UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG) establish groundwater monitoring plans for their active and inactive ash impoundments in Illinois. Ameren has entered into discussions with the Illinois EPA about a framework for closure of additional ash ponds in Illinois, including the ash ponds at Venice, Hutsonville, and Duck Creek, when such facilities are ultimately taken out of service. The permits for the Venice and Duck Creek ash ponds both expire in 2010. UE, Genco and CILCO (AERG) have recorded AROs, based on current laws, for the estimated costs of the retirement of their ash ponds.
At this time, we are unable to predict the effects any such state and federal regulations might have on our results of operations, financial position, and liquidity.
Pumped-storage Hydroelectric Facility Breach
In December 2005, there was a breach of the upper reservoir at UE’s Taum Sauk pumped-storage hydroelectric facility. This resulted in significant flooding in the local area, which damaged a state park. UE settled with FERC and the state of Missouri all issues associated with the December 2005 Taum Sauk incident.
UE has property and liability insurance coverage for the Taum Sauk incident, subject to certain limits and deductibles. Insurance does not cover lost electric margins and penalties paid to FERC. UE expects that the total cost for cleanup, damage and liabilities, excluding costs to rebuild the upper reservoir, will be approximately $205 million. As of March 31, 2010, UE had paid $205 million, including costs resulting from the FERC-approved stipulation and consent agreement. As of March 31, 2010, UE had recorded expenses of $35 million, primarily in prior years, for items not covered by insurance and had recorded a $170 million receivable for amounts recoverable from insurance companies under liability coverage. As of March 31, 2010, UE had received $103 million from insurance companies, which reduced the insurance receivable balance subject to liability coverage to $67 million.
UE received approval from FERC to rebuild the upper reservoir at its Taum Sauk plant. The rebuilt Taum Sauk plant became fully operational in April 2010. The cost to rebuild the upper reservoir was in the range of $490 million. As of March 31, 2010, UE had recorded a $420 million receivable due from insurance companies under property insurance coverage related to the rebuilding of the facility and the reimbursement of replacement power costs. As of March 31, 2010, UE had received $362 million from insurance companies, which reduced the property insurance receivable balance as of March 31, 2010, to $58 million.
Under UE’s insurance policies, all claims by or against UE are subject to review by its insurance carriers. In July 2009, three insurance carriers filed a petition against Ameren in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, seeking a declaratory judgment that the property insurance policy does not require these three insurers to indemnify Ameren for their share of the entire cost of construction associated with the facility rebuild design being utilized. The three insurers allege that they, along with the other policy participants, presented a rebuild design that was consistent with their insurance coverage obligations and that the insurance policies do not require these insurers to pay their share of the costs of construction associated with the design being used. These insurers have estimated a cost of approximately $214 million for their rebuild design compared to the estimated $490 million cost of the design approved by FERC and implemented by Ameren. Ameren has filed an answer and counterclaim in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, (the case has recently been transferred to the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Missouri) against these insurers. The counterclaim asserts that the three insurance carriers have breached their obligations under the property insurance policies issued to Ameren and UE. Ameren seeks payment of a sum to-be-determined for all amounts covered by these policies incurred in the facility rebuild, including power replacement costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The insurers that are parties to the litigation represent approximately 40%, on a weighted average basis, of the property insurance policy coverage between the disputed amounts of $214 million and $490 million.
On August 31, 2009, Ameren and the property insurance carriers that are not parties to the above litigation (the “Settling Insurance Companies”) reached a settlement of any and all claims, liabilities, and obligations arising out of, or relating to, coverage under its property insurance policy, including those related to the rebuilding of the facility and the reimbursement of replacement power costs. All payments from the Settling Insurance Companies were received by UE in September 2009.
Until Ameren’s remaining insurance claims and the related litigation are resolved, among other things, we are unable to determine the total impact the breach could have on Ameren’s and UE’s results of operations, financial position, and liquidity beyond those amounts already recognized. Ameren and UE expect to recover, through insurance, 80% to 90% of the total property insurance claim for the Taum Sauk incident. Beyond insurance, the recoverability of any Taum Sauk facility rebuild costs from customers is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in UE’s November 2007 State of Missouri settlement agreement. In that settlement, UE agreed that it would not attempt to recover from rate payers costs incurred in the reconstruction expressly excluding, however, enhancements, costs incurred due to circumstances or conditions that were not at that time reasonably foreseeable and costs that would have been incurred absent the Taum Sauk incident. Certain costs associated with the Taum Sauk facility not recovered from property insurers may be recoverable from UE’s electric customers through rates established in rate cases filed subsequent to the in-service date of the rebuilt facility. As of March 31, 2010, UE had capitalized in property and plant qualifying Taum Sauk-related costs of $100 million that UE believes qualify for potential recovery in electric rates under the terms of the November 2007 State of Missouri Settlement. The inclusion of such costs in UE’s electric rates is subject to review and approval by the MoPSC in a future rate case. Any amounts not recovered through insurance, in electric rates, or otherwise, could result in charges to earnings, which could be material.
Asbestos-related Litigation
Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case is significant; as many as 192 parties are named in some pending cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of March 31, 2010, the average number of parties was 71.
The claims filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs’ activities at our present or former electric generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants are now owned by AERG. Most of IP’s plants were transferred to a former parent subsidiary prior to Ameren’s acquisition of IP. As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants, CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.
The following table presents the pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies as of March 31, 2010:
| Specifically Named as Defendant | ||||||||||||
| Ameren | UE | CIPS | Genco | CILCO | IP | Total(a) | ||||||
|
1 |
27 | 32 | 9(b) | 16 | 41 | 74 | ||||||
| (a) | Total does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name multiple Ameren entities as defendants. |
| (b) | As of March 31, 2010, nine asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against EEI. The general liability insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims. |
At March 31, 2009, Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP had liabilities of $14 million, $4 million, $3 million, $- million, $2 million, and $5 million, respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims.
IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric rates are recovered by IP from a trust fund established by IP. At March 31, 2010, the trust fund balance was approximately $23 million, including accumulated interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, IP will contribute 90% of the difference to the fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider.
The Ameren Companies believe that the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on their results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.
|
|||
NOTE 10 - CALLAWAY NUCLEAR PLANT
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the DOE is responsible for the permanent storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The DOE currently charges one mill, or 1/ 10 of one cent, per nuclear-generated kilowatthour sold for future disposal of spent fuel (the NWF fee). Pursuant to this act, UE collects one mill from its electric customers for each kilowatthour of electricity that it generates and sells from its Callaway nuclear plant. Electric utility rates charged to customers provide for recovery of such costs. UE has sufficient installed storage capacity at its Callaway nuclear plant until 2020. It has the capability for additional storage capacity through the licensed life of the plant. The DOE recently submitted a motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain Repository license application with the NRC. In anticipation of this action, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in July 2009 formally requested that DOE promptly perform the statutorily required annual fee adequacy review and immediately suspend collection of the NWF fee. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandates that DOE compare the revenue generated by the NWF fee with the costs of the waste disposal program and adjust the size of the NWF fee to match the cost of the program. In the past, the cost of the program reviewed by DOE for NWF fee adequacy has been the cost of constructing and operating the Yucca Mountain Repository. DOE declined to eliminate or reduce the NWF fee. As a result, NEI and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners have filed suit in federal court seeking suspension of the NWF fee due to the DOE’s motion to withdraw the application. The DOE has also announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to evaluate alternatives for storage of spent nuclear fuel. The delayed availability of the DOE’s disposal facility is not expected to adversely affect the continued operation of the Callaway nuclear plant through its currently licensed life.
UE intends to submit a license extension application with the NRC to extend its Callaway nuclear plant’s operating license from 2024 to 2044. If the Callaway nuclear plant’s license is extended, additional spent fuel storage will be required. UE is evaluating the installation of a dry spent fuel storage facility at its Callaway nuclear plant.
Electric utility rates charged to customers provide for the recovery of the Callaway nuclear plant’s decommissioning costs, which include decontamination, dismantling, and site restoration costs, over an assumed 40-year life of the plant, ending with the expiration of the plant’s operating license in 2024. It is assumed that the Callaway nuclear plant site will be decommissioned based on the immediate dismantlement method and removal from service. Ameren and UE have recorded an ARO for the Callaway nuclear plant decommissioning costs at fair value, which represents the present value of estimated future cash outflows. Decommissioning costs are included in the costs of service used to establish electric rates for UE’s customers. These costs amounted to $7 million in each of the years 2009, 2008, and 2007. Every three years, the MoPSC requires UE to file an updated cost study for decommissioning its Callaway nuclear plant. Electric rates may be adjusted at such times to reflect changed estimates. The latest cost study was filed in September 2008 and included the minor tritium contamination discovered on the Callaway nuclear plant site, which did not result in a significant increase in the decommissioning cost estimate. Costs collected from customers are deposited in an external trust fund to provide for the Callaway nuclear plant’s decommissioning. If the assumed return on trust assets is not earned, we believe that it is probable that any such earnings deficiency will be recovered in rates. The fair value of the nuclear decommissioning trust fund for UE’s Callaway nuclear plant is reported as Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund in Ameren’s Consolidated Balance Sheet and UE’s Balance Sheet. This amount is legally restricted and may be used only to fund the costs of nuclear decommissioning. Changes in the fair value of the trust fund are recorded as an increase or decrease to the nuclear decommissioning trust fund, with an offsetting adjustment to the related regulatory asset.
|
|||
NOTE 11 - OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
Comprehensive income includes net income as reported on the statements of income and all other changes in common stockholders’ equity, except those resulting from transactions with common stockholders. A reconciliation of net income to comprehensive income for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, is shown below for Ameren, UE, and Genco. CIPS’, CILCO’s, and IP’s comprehensive income was composed of only their respective net income for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009.
| Three Months | ||||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | |||||||
|
Ameren:(a) |
||||||||
|
Net income |
$ | 106 | $ | 145 | ||||
|
Unrealized net gain on derivative hedging instruments, net of taxes of $18 and $44, respectively |
28 | 81 | ||||||
|
Reclassification adjustments for derivative (gain) included in net income, net of taxes of $9 and $26, respectively |
(15 | ) | (46 | ) | ||||
|
Reclassification adjustment due to implementation of FAC, net of taxes of $- and $18, respectively |
- | (29 | ) | |||||
|
Adjustment to pension and benefit obligation, net of taxes of $1 and $-, respectively |
(1 | ) | - | |||||
|
Total comprehensive income, net of taxes |
$ | 118 | $ | 151 | ||||
|
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests, net of taxes |
4 | 4 | ||||||
|
Total comprehensive income attributable to Ameren Corporation, net of taxes |
$ | 114 | $ | 147 | ||||
|
UE: |
||||||||
|
Net income |
$ | 28 | $ | 22 | ||||
|
Unrealized net gain on derivative hedging instruments, net of taxes of $- and $11, respectively |
- | 17 | ||||||
|
Reclassification adjustments for derivative (gain) included in net income, net of taxes of $- and $8, respectively |
- | (12 | ) | |||||
|
Reclassification adjustment due to implementation of FAC, net of taxes of $- and $18, respectively |
- | (29 | ) | |||||
|
Total comprehensive income, net of taxes |
$ | 28 | $ | (2 | ) | |||
|
Genco: |
||||||||
|
Net income |
$ | 24 | $ | 55 | ||||
|
Reclassification adjustments for derivative (gain) included in net income, net of taxes of $- and $-, respectively |
- | - | ||||||
|
Adjustment to pension and benefit obligation, net of taxes of $2 and $-, respectively |
(1 | ) | 1 | |||||
|
Total comprehensive income, net of taxes |
$ | 23 | $ | 56 | ||||
|
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest, net of taxes |
1 | 2 | ||||||
|
Total comprehensive income attributable to Ameren Energy Generating Company |
$ | 22 | $ | 54 | ||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries and intercompany eliminations. |
|
|||
NOTE 12 - RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Ameren’s pension and postretirement plans are funded in compliance with income tax regulations and to achieve federal funding or regulatory requirements. As a result, Ameren expects to fund its pension plans at a level equal to the greater of the pension expense or the legally required minimum contribution. Considering Ameren’s assumptions at December 31, 2009, its estimated investment performance through March 31, 2010, and its pension funding policy, Ameren expects to make annual contributions of $75 million to $225 million in each of the next five years, with aggregate estimated contributions of $740 million. These amounts are estimates which may change with actual investment performance, changes in interest rates, any pertinent changes in government regulations, and any voluntary contributions. Our policy for postretirement benefits is primarily to fund the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trusts to match the annual postretirement expense.
The following table presents the components of the net periodic benefit cost for our pension and postretirement benefit plans for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
| Pension Benefits(a) | Postretirement Benefits(a) | |||||||||||||||
| Three Months | Three Months | |||||||||||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
|
Service cost |
$ | 17 | $ | 17 | $ | 5 | $ | 5 | ||||||||
|
Interest cost |
47 | 47 | 16 | 17 | ||||||||||||
|
Expected return on plan assets |
(53 | ) | (52 | ) | (14 | ) | (13 | ) | ||||||||
|
Amortization of: |
||||||||||||||||
|
Transition obligation |
- | - | - | - | ||||||||||||
|
Prior service cost (benefit) |
2 | 2 | (2 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||||||
|
Actuarial loss |
5 | 7 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||||||
|
Net periodic benefit cost |
$ | 18 | $ | 21 | $ | 7 | $ | 10 | ||||||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries. |
UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP are responsible for their share of the pension and postretirement costs. The following table presents the pension costs and the postretirement benefit costs incurred for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009:
| Pension Costs | Postretirement Costs | |||||||||||
| Three Months | Three Months | |||||||||||
| 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||
|
Ameren(a) |
$ | 18 | $ | 21 | $ | 7 | $ | 10 | ||||
|
UE |
12 | 13 | 3 | 4 | ||||||||
|
CIPS |
2 | 3 | - | 1 | ||||||||
|
Genco |
3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
|
CILCO |
3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
|
IP |
- | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
| (a) | Includes amounts for Ameren registrant and nonregistrant subsidiaries. |
Health Care Reform Legislation
During the first quarter of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Bill of 2010 were enacted and signed into law (collectively, the “Act”) in the United States. The Ameren Companies provide prescription drug benefits to retiree participants. Because the benefits provided are at least actuarially equivalent to benefits available to retirees under the Prescription Drug Act, the Ameren Companies qualify for and receive federal subsidies that mitigate the cost of the benefits. Historically, the subsidies were not subject to tax, and Ameren was allowed to deduct the cost of the benefits. The Act includes a provision that disallows federal income tax deductions for retiree health care costs to the extent an employer’s postretirement health care plan receives these federal subsidies. Although this change does not take effect immediately, the Ameren Companies are required to recognize the full tax accounting impact in their financial statements in the period in which the legislation is signed into law. As a result, in the first quarter of 2010, Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO, and IP recorded total non-cash after-tax charges of $13 million, $5 million, $1 million, $3 million, less than $1 million, and less than $1 million to reduce deferred tax assets. The reduction of these income tax deductions is also estimated to increase Ameren’s, UE’s, CIPS’, Genco’s, CILCO’s, and IP’s total annual income tax expense by approximately $2 million to $3 million, $1 million to $2 million, less than $1 million, less than $1 million, less than $1 million, and less than $1 million, respectively. Although many of the specifics associated with the Act have not yet been addressed, it is our preliminary view that the other provisions of the Act do not have a material impact on our current financial results. We will continue to study the potential future effects of this Act as further clarity is provided.
|
|||
NOTE 13 - SEGMENT INFORMATION
Ameren has three reportable segments: Missouri Regulated, Illinois Regulated, and Merchant Generation. The Missouri Regulated segment for Ameren includes all the operations of UE’s business as described in Note 1- Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. The Illinois Regulated segment for Ameren consists of the regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution businesses of CIPS, CILCO, and IP, as described in Note 1- Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, and AITC. The Merchant Generation segment for Ameren consists primarily of the operations or activities of Genco, the CILCORP parent company (until March 4, 2010, when CILCORP merged with and into Ameren), AERG, and Marketing Company. The category called Other primarily includes Ameren parent company activities.
CILCO has two reportable segments: Illinois Regulated and Merchant Generation. The Illinois Regulated segment for CILCO consists of the regulated electric and gas transmission and distribution businesses. The Merchant Generation segment for CILCO consists of the generation business of AERG.
The following tables present information about the reported revenues and specified items included in net income of Ameren and CILCO for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, and total assets as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009.
Ameren
| Three Months | Missouri Regulated |
Illinois Regulated |
Merchant Generation |
Other | Intersegment Eliminations |
Consolidated | ||||||||||||||
|
2010: |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
External revenues |
$ | 677 | $ | 885 | $ | 354 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 1,916 | ||||||||
|
Intersegment revenues |
5 | 2 | 74 | 3 | (84 | ) | - | |||||||||||||
|
Net income (loss) attributable to Ameren Corporation(a) |
27 | 33 | 44 | (2 | ) | - | 102 | |||||||||||||
|
2009: |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
External revenues |
$ | 648 | $ | 928 | $ | 336 | $ | 4 | $ | - | $ | 1,916 | ||||||||
|
Intersegment revenues |
7 | 8 | 116 | 4 | (135 | ) | - | |||||||||||||
|
Net income attributable to Ameren Corporation(a) |
21 | 25 | 93 | 2 | - | 141 | ||||||||||||||
|
As of March 31, 2010: |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 12,073 | $ | 7,412 | $ | 4,947 | $ | 1,118 | $ | (1,862 | ) | $ | 23,688 | |||||||
|
As of December 31, 2009: |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 12,301 | $ | 7,344 | $ | 4,921 | $ | 1,657 | $ | (2,433 | ) | $ | 23,790 | |||||||
| (a) | Represents net income (loss) available to common stockholders; 100% of CILCO’s preferred stock dividends are included in the Illinois Regulated segment. |
CILCO
| Three Months | Illinois Regulated |
Merchant Generation |
CILCO Other |
Intersegment Eliminations |
Consolidated CILCO |
|||||||||||
|
2010: |
||||||||||||||||
|
External revenues |
$ | 206 | $ | 92 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 298 | ||||||
|
Intersegment revenues |
- | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||
|
Net income(a) |
7 | 12 | - | - | 19 | |||||||||||
|
2009: |
||||||||||||||||
|
External revenues |
$ | 219 | $ | 92 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 311 | ||||||
|
Intersegment revenues |
- | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||
|
Net income(a) |
7 | 26 | - | - | 33 | |||||||||||
|
As of March 31, 2010: |
||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 1,291 | $ | 1,083 | $ | - | $ | - | $ | 2,374 | ||||||
|
As of December 31, 2009: |
||||||||||||||||
|
Total assets |
$ | 1,264 | $ | 1,119 | $ | - | $ | (1 | ) | $ | 2,382 | |||||
| (a) | Represents net income available to the common stockholder (CILCORP until March 4, 2010, Ameren beginning March 4, 2010); 100% of CILCO’s preferred stock dividends are included in the Illinois Regulated segment. |
|
|||
NOTE 14 - CORPORATE REORGANIZATION
On March 15, 2010, Ameren, CIPS, CILCO, IP, AERG and Resources Company filed an application with FERC requesting certain FERC authorizations related to a two-step corporate reorganization. The first step of the reorganization would merge CILCO and IP with and into CIPS (the “Merger”), after which the surviving corporation would be renamed “Ameren Illinois Company” (“Ameren Illinois”). The second step of the reorganization would involve the distribution of AERG stock from Ameren Illinois to Ameren (the “AERG distribution”) and the subsequent contribution by Ameren of the AERG stock to Resources Company.
On March 15, 2010, CIPS, CILCO and IP filed with the ICC a notice of merger and reorganization to notify the ICC of their intent to effect the Merger and CIPS filed a notice of its intent to effect the AERG distribution. The Merger and the AERG distribution are expressly authorized by the Illinois Public Utilities Act and do not require ICC approval.
CIPS, CILCO and IP do not expect to redeem any of their outstanding long-term debt or preferred stock prior to or in connection with the Merger, with the exception of CILCO’s preferred stock and the $40 million principal amount of CIPS’ 7.61% Series 97-2 first mortgage bonds. Following the redemption of those CIPS’ mortgage bonds, CIPS intends to cause a release date to occur with respect to CIPS’ senior secured notes, causing these notes to become unsecured and CIPS’ mortgage indenture to be discharged. If the Merger is consummated, the debt and other obligations of CILCO and IP under their mortgage indentures, senior note indentures and pollution control bond agreements will become debt and obligations of Ameren Illinois, and the property owned by CILCO and IP immediately before the Merger that was subject to the lien of one of their respective mortgage indentures will still be subject to such lien and secure the bonds outstanding under such mortgage indenture subject to the release and other provisions of such mortgage indenture.
The senior secured notes of IP and CILCO will still be secured by the mortgage bonds held by their respective senior note trustee subject to the release and other provisions of the respective senior note indenture. The debt and other obligations of CIPS will remain debt and obligations of Ameren Illinois. If the Merger is consummated, it is expected that Ameren Illinois will secure the CIPS senior notes with the benefit of a lien under the IP mortgage indenture so long as Ameren Illinois has outstanding other senior notes with the benefit of this lien. After the Merger, Ameren Illinois is also expected to encumber substantially all of the operating property owned by CIPS immediately before the Merger with the lien of the IP mortgage indenture. On April 13, 2010, CIPS, CILCO and IP entered into a merger agreement to accomplish the Merger.
Pursuant to the merger agreement, at the effective time of the Merger: (i) all shares of each series of IP preferred stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger will be automatically converted into shares of a newly created series of Ameren Illinois preferred stock having the same payment and redemption terms as the existing series of IP preferred stock, except to the extent that IP preferred shareholders exercise their dissenters’ rights in accordance with Illinois law; and (ii) each outstanding share of CIPS common and preferred stock will remain outstanding, except to the extent that CIPS preferred shareholders exercise their dissenters’ rights in accordance with Illinois law. Prior to the Merger, but after consenting to the Merger, Ameren will contribute to the capital of IP, without the payment of any consideration, all of the IP preferred stock owned by Ameren.
Consummation of the Merger is subject to certain customary conditions, including obtaining shareholder approval, which approval is expected to be provided by Ameren, and obtaining any required approvals from FERC. The merger agreement may be terminated at any time prior to closing upon the mutual written consent of CIPS, CILCO and IP or other specified circumstances.
We filed a request on April 21, 2010, for a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service substantially to the effect that the AERG distribution will qualify as a generally tax-free transaction for United States federal income tax purposes. The AERG distribution is expected to occur immediately after the Merger. However, in the event that we have not received the ruling prior to the consummation of the Merger, we reserve the right to consummate the AERG distribution without such ruling or at a later time.
The Merger is intended to be completed on or before October 1, 2010. There can be no assurances regarding whether the Merger or the AERG distribution will be completed or as to the timing of any such transaction or action.