SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
|
Washington,
D.C. 20549
|
FORM
10-K
|
|
|
(Mark
One)
|
|
þ
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934
|
|
For
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
|
OR
|
|
|
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
For
the transition period
from to
|
|
Commission
File Number 1-14174
|
|
AGL
RESOURCES INC.
|
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Georgia
|
58-2210952
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
|
(I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
|
|
|
Ten
Peachtree Place NE,
|
404-584-4000
|
Atlanta,
Georgia 30309
|
|
(Address
and zip code of principal executive offices)
|
(Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code)
|
|
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class
|
Name of each exchange on which
registered
|
Common
Stock, $5 Par Value
|
New
York Stock Exchange
|
|
|
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
|
|
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as
defined in Rule 405 under the Securities
Act. Yes
þ
No
¨
|
|
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant
to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Act. Yes
¨
No
þ
|
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days. Yes
þ
No
¨
|
|
|
Indicate
by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the
best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information
statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K.
¨
|
|
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting
company
Large
accelerated filer
þ
Accelerated
filer
¨
Non-accelerated
filer
¨
Smaller
reporting company
¨
|
|
|
(Do not
check if smaller reporting company)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes
¨
No
þ
|
|
The
aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common
equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, computed by reference to
the price at which the registrant’s common stock was last sold as of the
last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second
fiscal quarter, was $2,651,161,320.
|
|
|
The
number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of
January 30, 2009 was 76,902,777.
|
|
|
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
|
Portions
of the Proxy Statement for the 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (“Proxy
Statement”) to be held April 29, 2009, are incorporated by reference in
Part III.
|
|
|
|
Page(s)
|
|
Glossary
of Key Terms & Referenced Accounting Standards
|
|
|
4-5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item
1.
|
|
|
|
6-16
|
|
|
|
|
|
6-9
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-13
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-14
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-16
|
|
Item
1A.
|
|
|
|
16-23
|
|
Item
1B.
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Item
2.
|
|
|
|
23-24
|
|
Item
3.
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Item
4.
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Part
II
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item
5.
|
|
|
|
26-27
|
|
Item
6.
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Item
7.
|
|
|
|
29-46
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-30
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-35
|
|
|
|
|
|
35-41
|
|
|
|
|
|
41-46
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
Item
7A.
|
|
|
|
46-50
|
|
Item
8.
|
|
|
|
51-87
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
53-54
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
58-65
|
|
|
|
|
|
65-70
|
|
|
|
|
|
70-73
|
|
|
|
|
|
74-77
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
|
78-80
|
|
|
|
|
|
81-84
|
|
|
|
|
|
84-85
|
|
|
|
|
|
85-87
|
|
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
Item
9.
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
Item
9A.
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
Item
9B.
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
TABLE
OF CONTENTS – continued
Part
III
|
|
|
|
|
Item
10.
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
Item
11.
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
Item
12.
|
|
|
|
88-89
|
|
Item
13.
|
|
|
|
89
|
|
Item
14.
|
|
|
|
89
|
|
Part
IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item
15.
|
|
|
|
89-93
|
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
Atlanta
Gas Light
|
Atlanta
Gas Light Company
|
|
AGL
Capital
|
AGL
Capital Corporation
|
|
AGL
Networks
|
AGL
Networks, LLC
|
|
AGSC
|
AGL
Services Company, a service company established in accordance with SEC
regulations
|
|
AIP
|
Annual
Incentive Plan
|
|
Bcf
|
Billion
cubic feet
|
|
Chattanooga
Gas
|
Chattanooga
Gas Company
|
|
Compass
Energy
|
Compass
Energy Services, Inc.
|
|
Credit
Facilities
|
$1.0
billion and $140 million credit agreements of AGL Capital
|
|
Deregulation
Act
|
1997
Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act
|
|
Dominion
Ohio
|
Dominion
East of Ohio, a Cleveland, Ohio based natural gas company; a subsidiary of
Dominion Resources, Inc.
|
|
EBIT
|
Earnings
before interest and taxes, a non-GAAP measure that includes operating
income, other income, minority interest in SouthStar’s earnings and gain
on sales of assets and excludes interest and income tax expense; as an
indicator of our operating performance, EBIT should not be considered an
alternative to, or more meaningful than, operating income or net income as
determined in accordance with GAAP
|
|
EITF
|
Emerging
Issues Task Force
|
|
Energy
Act
|
Energy
Policy Act of 2005
|
|
ERC
|
Environmental
remediation costs associated with our distribution operations segment
which are recoverable through rates mechanisms
|
|
FASB
|
Financial
Accounting Standards Board
|
|
FERC
|
Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
|
|
Fitch
|
Fitch
Ratings
|
|
Florida
Commission
|
Florida
Public Service Commission
|
|
FSP
|
FASB
Staff Position
|
|
GAAP
|
Accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of
America
|
|
Georgia
Commission
|
Georgia
Public Service Commission
|
|
Golden
Triangle Storage
|
Golden
Triangle Storage, Inc.
|
|
Heating
Degree Days
|
A
measure of the effects of weather on our businesses, calculated when the
average daily actual temperatures are less than a baseline temperature of
65 degrees Fahrenheit.
|
|
Heating
Season
|
The
period from November to March when natural gas usuage and operating
revenues are generally higher because more customer are connected to our
distribution systems when weather is colder.
|
|
Jefferson
Island
|
Jefferson
Island Storage & Hub, LLC
|
|
LIBOR
|
London
interbank offered rate
|
|
LNG
|
Liquefied
natural gas
|
|
LOCOM
|
Lower
of weighted average cost or current market price
|
|
Louisiana
DNR
|
Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
|
|
Magnolia
|
Magnolia
Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
|
|
Maryland
Commission
|
Maryland
Public Service Commission
|
|
Marketers
|
Marketers
selling retail natural gas in Georgia and certificated by the Georgia
Commission
|
|
Medium-term
notes
|
Notes
issued by Atlanta Gas Light with scheduled maturities between 2012 and
2027 bearing interest rates ranging from 6.6% to 9.1%
|
|
MGP
|
Manufactured
gas plant
|
|
MMBtu
|
NYMEX
equivalent contract units of 10,000 million British thermal
units
|
|
Moody’s
|
Moody’s
Investors Service
|
|
New
Jersey Commission
|
New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities
|
|
NUI
|
NUI
Corporation - an acquisition which was completed in November
2004
|
|
NYMEX
|
New
York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
|
|
OCI
|
Other
comprehensive income
|
|
Operating
margin
|
A
measure of income, calculated as revenues minus cost of gas, that excludes
operation and maintenance expense, depreciation and amortization, taxes
other than income taxes, and the gain or loss on the sale of our assets;
these items are included in our calculation of operating income as
reflected in our statements of consolidated income.
|
OTC
|
Over-the-counter
|
Piedmont
|
Piedmont
Natural Gas
|
Pivotal
Propane
|
Pivotal
Propane of Virginia, Inc.
|
Pivotal
Utility
|
Pivotal
Utility Holdings, Inc., doing business as Elizabethtown Gas, Elkton Gas
and Florida City Gas
|
PP&E
|
Property,
plant and equipment
|
PRP
|
Pipeline
replacement program for Atlanta Gas Light
|
S&P
|
Standard
& Poor’s Ratings Services
|
Saltville
|
Saltville
Gas Storage Company
|
SEC
|
Securities
and Exchange Commission
|
Sequent
|
Sequent
Energy Management, L.P.
|
SFAS
|
Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards
|
SNG
|
Southern
Natural Gas Company, a subsidiary of El Paso
Corporation
|
SouthStar
|
SouthStar
Energy Services LLC
|
Tennessee
Commission
|
Tennessee
Regulatory Authority
|
VaR
|
Value
at risk is defined as the maximum potential loss in portfolio value over a
specified time period that is not expected to be exceeded within a given
degree of probability
|
Virginia
Natural Gas
|
Virginia
Natural Gas, Inc.
|
Virginia
Commission
|
Virginia
State Corporation Commission
|
WACOG
|
Weighted
average cost of goods
|
WNA
|
Weather
normalization
adjustment
|
APB
25
|
APB
Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees”
|
EITF
98-10
|
EITF
Issue No. 98-10, “Accounting for Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and
Risk Management Activities”
|
EITF
99-02
|
EITF
Issue No. 99-02, “Accounting for Weather Derivatives”
|
EITF
00-11
|
EITF
Issue No. 00-11, “Lessor’s Evaluation of Whether Leases of Certain
Integral Equipment Meet the Ownership Transfer Requirements of FASB
Statement No. 13,
Accounting for Leases
,
for Leases of Real Estate”
|
EITF
02-03
|
EITF
Issue No. 02-03, “Issues Involved in Accounting for Contracts under EITF
Issue No. 98-10, ‘Accounting for Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and
Risk Management Activities’”
|
FIN
39
|
FASB
Interpretation No. (FIN) 39 “Offsetting of Amounts Related to Certain
Contracts”
|
FSP
FIN 39-1
|
FASB
Staff Position 39-1 “Amendment of FIN 39”
|
FIN
46 & FIN 46R
|
FIN
46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”
|
FIN
48
|
FIN
48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of SFAS
Statement No. 109”
|
FSP
EITF 03-6-1
|
FSP
EITF 03-6-1, “Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based
Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities”
|
|
FSP
EITF 06-3
|
FSP
EITF 06-3, “How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to
Governmental Authorities Should be Presented in the Income Statement (That
Is, Gross versus Net Presentation)”
|
|
FSP
FAS 133-1
|
FSP
No. FAS 133-1, “Disclosures about Credit Derivatives and Certain
Guarantees: An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133”
|
|
FSP
FAS 140-R and FIN 46R-8
|
FSP
No. FAS 140-R and FIN 46R-8, “Disclosures by Public Entities (Enterprises)
about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in Variable Interest
Entities”
|
|
FSP
FAS 157-3
|
FSP
No. FAS 157-3, “Determining the Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the
Market for That Asset Is Not Active”
|
|
SFAS
5
|
SFAS
No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies”
|
|
SFAS
13
|
SFAS
No. 13, “Accounting for Leases”
|
|
SFAS
66
|
SFAS
No. 66, “Accounting for Sales of Real Estate”
|
|
SFAS
71
|
SFAS
No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of
Regulation”
|
|
SFAS
87
|
SFAS
No. 87, “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions”
|
|
SFAS
106
|
SFAS
No. 106, “Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than
Pensions”
|
|
SFAS
109
|
SFAS
No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes”
|
|
SFAS
123 & SFAS 123R
|
SFAS
No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”
|
|
SFAS
133
|
SFAS
No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities”
|
|
SFAS
140
|
SFAS
No. 140, “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing Financial
Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities”
|
|
SFAS
141
|
SFAS
No. 141, “Business Combinations”
|
SFAS
142
|
SFAS
No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”
|
SFAS
148
|
SFAS
No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and
Disclosure”
|
SFAS
149
|
SFAS
No. 149, “Amendment of SFAS 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities”
|
SFAS
157
|
SFAS
No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”
|
SFAS
158
|
SFAS
No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other
Postretirement Plans”
|
SFAS
160
|
SFAS
No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements”
|
SFAS
161
|
SFAS
No. 161, “Disclosure about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,
an amendment of SFAS
133”
|
PART
I
Unless
the context requires otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “company”
and “AGL Resources” are intended to mean consolidated AGL Resources Inc. and its
subsidiaries.
We are an
energy services holding company whose principal business is the distribution of
natural gas in six states - Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee
and Virginia. Our six utilities serve more than 2.2 million end-use customers,
making us the largest distributor of natural gas in the southeastern and
mid-Atlantic regions of the United States based on customer count. We are also
involved in several related and complementary businesses, including retail
natural gas marketing to end-use customers primarily in Georgia; natural gas
asset management and related logistics activities for each of our utilities as
well as for nonaffiliated companies; natural gas storage arbitrage and related
activities; and the development and operation of high-deliverability natural gas
storage assets. We also own and operate a small telecommunications business that
constructs and operates conduit and fiber infrastructure within select
metropolitan areas.
We manage
these businesses through four operating segments and a nonoperating corporate
segment. Operating revenues, operating margin, operating expenses and EBIT for
each of our business segments are presented in the following table for the last
three years.
In
millions
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
|
Operating
margin (1)
|
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
EBIT
(1)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
$
|
1,768
|
|
|
$
|
818
|
|
$
|
493
|
|
$
|
329
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
987
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
57
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
170
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
60
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
19
|
|
Corporate
(2)
|
|
|
(180
|
)
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Consolidated
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
|
$
|
1,146
|
|
$
|
668
|
|
$
|
464
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
$
|
1,665
|
|
|
$
|
820
|
|
$
|
485
|
|
$
|
338
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
892
|
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
83
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
34
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
15
|
|
Corporate
(2)
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
Consolidated
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
|
$
|
1,125
|
|
$
|
636
|
|
$
|
463
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
$
|
1,624
|
|
|
$
|
807
|
|
$
|
499
|
|
$
|
310
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
930
|
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
63
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
|
139
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
90
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
10
|
|
Corporate
(2)
|
|
|
(156
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Consolidated
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
|
$
|
1,139
|
|
$
|
651
|
|
$
|
464
|
|
(1)
|
These
are non-GAAP measurements. A reconciliation of operating margin and EBIT
to
our
operating income, earnings before income taxes and net income is contained
|
(2) Includes
intercompany eliminations
Over the
last three years, on average, we have derived 84% of our operating segments’
EBIT from our regulated natural gas distribution business and the sale of
natural gas to retail customers primarily in Georgia through our affiliate
SouthStar. This statistic is significant because it represents the portion of
our earnings that directly results from the underlying business of supplying
natural gas to retail customers. SouthStar, which is subject to a different
regulatory framework from our utilities, is an integral part of the retail
framework for providing natural gas service to end-use customers in
Georgia.
We
derived our remaining operating EBIT for the last three years principally from
businesses that are complementary to our natural gas distribution business. We
engage in natural gas asset management and the operation of high-deliverability
natural gas underground storage as ancillary activities to our utility
franchises. These businesses allow us to be opportunistic in capturing
incremental value at the wholesale level and provide us with deepened business
insight about natural gas market dynamics.
The
following chart provides each operating segment’s percentage contribution to the
total operating EBIT for the last three years.
Our
distribution operations segment is the largest component of our business and
includes six natural gas local distribution utilities. These utilities
construct, manage and maintain intrastate natural gas pipelines and distribution
facilities and include:
·
|
Atlanta
Gas Light in Georgia
|
·
|
Chattanooga
Gas in Tennessee
|
·
|
Elizabethtown
Gas in New Jersey
|
·
|
Florida
City Gas in Florida
|
·
|
Virginia
Natural Gas in Virginia
|
Regulatory
Environment
Each
utility operates subject to regulations of the state regulatory agencies in its
service territories with respect to rates charged to our customers, maintenance
of accounting records and various service and safety matters. Rates charged to
our customers vary according to customer class (residential, commercial or
industrial) and rate jurisdiction. Rates are set at levels that generally should
allow recovery of all prudently incurred costs, including a return on rate base
sufficient to pay interest on debt and provide a reasonable return for our
shareholders. Rate base generally consists of the original cost of utility plant
in service, working capital and certain other assets; less accumulated
depreciation on utility plant in service and net deferred income tax
liabilities, and may include certain other additions or deductions.
In 2009
and 2010, we expect to file base rate cases in four of our six jurisdictions.
Over the past several years our utilities have been fulfilling their long-term
commitments to rate freezes, which begin expiring in 2009. As these rate cases
are filed, we will be seeking rate reforms that encourage conservation and
“decoupling.” In traditional rate designs, our utilities’ recovery of a
significant portion of their fixed customer service costs is tied to assumed
natural gas volumes used by our customers. We believe separating, or decoupling,
the recovery of these fixed costs from the natural gas deliveries will align the
interests of our customers and utilities by encouraging energy conservation and
ensuring stable returns for our shareholders.
For our
largest utility, Atlanta Gas Light, the natural gas market was deregulated in
1997 with the Deregulation Act. Prior to this act, Atlanta Gas Light was the
supplier and seller of natural gas to its customers. Today, Marketers sell
natural gas to end-use customers in Georgia and handle customer billing
functions. The Marketers file their rates monthly with the Georgia Commission.
Atlanta Gas Light's role includes:
·
|
distributing
natural gas for Marketers
|
·
|
constructing,
operating and maintaining the gas system infrastructure, including
responding to customer service calls and
leaks
|
·
|
reading
meters and maintaining underlying customer premise information for
Marketers
|
·
|
planning
and contracting for capacity on interstate transportation and storage
systems
|
Atlanta
Gas Light recognizes revenue under a straight-fixed-variable rate design whereby
it charges rates to its customers based primarily on monthly fixed charges that
are periodically adjusted. The Marketers bill these charges directly to their
customers. This mechanism minimizes the seasonality of Atlanta Gas Light’s
revenues since the monthly fixed charge is not volumetric or directly weather
dependent. However, weather indirectly influences the number of customers that
have active accounts during the heating season, and this has a seasonal impact
on Atlanta Gas Light’s revenues since generally more customers are connected in
periods of colder weather than in periods of warmer weather.
All of
our utilities, excluding Atlanta Gas Light, are authorized to use a natural gas
cost recovery mechanism that allows them to adjust their rates to reflect
changes in the wholesale cost of natural gas and to ensure they recover 100% of
the costs incurred in purchasing gas for their customers. Since Atlanta Gas
Light does not sell natural gas directly to its end-use customers, it does not
need or utilize a natural gas cost recovery mechanism.
Regulatory Agreements
In
2007, we filed a joint FERC application with SNG, which was approved in 2008,
which obtained an undivided interest in pipelines connecting our Georgia service
territory to the Elba Island LNG facility. Under the project, we would purchase
the undivided interest and, in turn, lease the interest to SNG. Atlanta Gas
Light would then subscribe to the associated supply capacity from SNG. The
project is expected to be completed in 2009. We along with SNG have undertaken
this pipeline project in an effort to diversify our sources of natural gas by
gaining more access to natural gas supplies from SNG’s Elba Island LNG facility
located on Georgia’s Atlantic coast near Savannah. We currently receive the
majority of our natural gas supply from a production region in and around the
Gulf of Mexico and generally, demand for this natural gas is growing faster than
supply.
In July
2008, Virginia Natural Gas filed a Conservation and Ratemaking Efficiency Plan
with the Virginia Commission. The plan was filed pursuant to the Natural Gas
Conservation and Ratemaking Efficiency Act passed by the State of Virginia in
March 2008. The act allows natural gas utilities to implement conservation
programs and alternative rate designs that would allow the utilities to recover
the cost of providing safe and reliable service based on normal customer usage.
In October 2008, Virginia Natural Gas filed with the Virginia Commission a
motion for approval of the proposed plan; which was approved by the Virginia
Commission in December 2008. As part of this plan, Virginia Natural Gas intends
to invest approximately $7 million over three years in new conservation programs
and to implement an accompanying decoupled rate design mechanism that will help
to mitigate the impact of declining usage due to conservation and provide the
utility with an opportunity to recover its fixed costs.
In
December 2007, the Florida Commission approved our request to include the
amortization of certain components of the purchase price we paid for Florida
City Gas in our calculation of return on equity. The costs will not be amortized
for financial reporting purposes in accordance with GAAP, but will be amortized
over a period of 5 to 30 years for our regulatory reporting to the Florida
Commission in connection with the Florida Commission’s review of Florida City
Gas’ return on equity. Additionally and under the same order, the Florida
Commission approved a five-year base rate stay-out beginning October 2007,
whereby base rates will not be increased, except for certain unforeseen acts
beyond our control. The five-year stay-out provision does not preclude the
Florida Commission from initiating over- earning or other proceedings that may
result in rate reductions.
A
November 2004 agreement between Elizabethtown Gas and the New Jersey Commission
approved our acquisition of NUI. This agreement included, among other things, a
base rate freeze for Elizabethtown Gas for a five-year period with new rates, if
approved, to go into effect no later than January 2010. Beginning with the
December 2007 annual measurement period, 75% of Elizabethtown Gas’ earnings in
excess of an 11% return on equity are shared with rate payers in the fourth and
fifth years of the base rate stay-out period.
The
following table provides certain regulatory information for our largest
utilities.
|
|
Atlanta
Gas Light
|
|
|
Elizabethtown
Gas
|
|
|
Virginia
Natural Gas
|
|
|
Florida
City Gas
|
|
|
Chattanooga
Gas
|
|
Current
rates effective until
|
|
|
Q2
2010
|
|
|
|
Q4
2009 - Q1 2010
|
|
|
|
Q3
2011
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
Q1
2011
|
|
Authorized
return on rate base
(1)
|
|
|
8.53
|
%
|
|
|
7.95
|
%
|
|
|
9.24
|
%
|
|
|
7.36
|
%
|
|
|
7.89
|
%
|
Estimated
2008 return on rate base
(2) (3)
|
|
|
8.38
|
%
|
|
|
6.86
|
%
|
|
|
8.24
|
%
|
|
|
5.63
|
%
|
|
|
6.52
|
%
|
Authorized
return on equity
(1)
|
|
|
10.90
|
%
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
|
|
10.90
|
%
|
|
|
11.25
|
%
|
|
|
10.20
|
%
|
Estimated
2008 return on equity
(2)
(3)
|
|
|
10.59
|
%
|
|
|
7.67
|
%
|
|
|
9.61
|
%
|
|
|
7.09
|
%
|
|
|
7.14
|
%
|
|
Authorized
rate base % of equity
(1)
|
|
|
47.9
|
%
|
|
|
53.0
|
%
|
|
|
52.4
|
%
|
|
|
36.8
|
%
|
|
|
44.8
|
%
|
|
Rate
base included in 2008 return on equity
(in millions)
(3) (4)
|
|
$
|
1,312
|
|
|
$
|
471
|
|
|
$
|
378
|
|
|
$
|
152
|
|
|
$
|
108
|
|
Performance
based rates
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü
|
|
|
ü
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weather
normalization
(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü
|
|
|
ü
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü
|
Decoupled
or straight-fixed variable rate design
(7)
|
|
ü
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State
regulator
|
|
Georgia
Commission
|
|
|
New
Jersey Commission
|
|
|
Virginia
Commission
|
|
|
Florida
Commission
|
|
|
Tennessee
Commission
|
|
|
(1)
|
The
authorized return on rate base, return on equity, and percentage of equity
reflected above were those authorized as of December 31,
2008.
|
(2)
|
Estimates
based on principles consistent with utility ratemaking in each
jurisdiction, and are not necessarily consistent with GAAP
returns.
|
(3)
|
Florida
City Gas includes the impacts of the acquisition adjustment, as approved
by the Florida Commission in December 2007, in its rate base, return on
rate base and return on equity
calculations.
|
(4)
|
Estimated
based on 13-month average.
|
(5)
|
Involves
frozen rates for a determined period, and or allows for sharing of
earnings with customers when returns on equity or rate base exceeds agreed
upon amounts.
|
(6)
|
Involves
regulatory mechanisms that allow us to recover our costs in the event of
unseasonal weather, but are not direct offsets to the potential impacts of
weather and customer consumption on earnings. These mechanisms are
designed to help stabilize operating results by increasing base rate
amounts charged to customers when weather is warmer than normal and
decreasing amounts charged when weather is colder than
normal.
|
(
7)
|
Decoupled
and straight-fixed variable rate designs allow for the recovery of fixed
customer service costs separately from assumed natural gas volumes used by
our customers.
|
Customer Demand
All of
our utilities face competition from other energy products. Our principal
competition is from electric utilities and oil and propane providers serving the
residential and commercial markets throughout our service areas and the
potential displacement or replacement of natural gas appliances with electric
appliances. The primary competitive factors are the prices for competing sources
of energy as compared to natural gas and the desirability of natural gas heating
versus alternative heating sources.
Competition
for space heating and general household and small commercial energy needs
generally occurs at the initial installation phase when the customer or builder
makes decisions as to which types of equipment to install. Customers generally
continue to use the chosen energy source for the life of the equipment. Customer
demand for natural gas could be affected by numerous factors,
including:
·
|
changes
in the availability or price of natural gas and other forms of
energy
|
·
|
general
economic conditions
|
·
|
legislation
and regulations
|
·
|
the
capability to convert from natural gas to alternative
fuels
|
Due to
the general economic downturn and the decline in the housing markets in the
areas we serve, we experienced lower than expected customer growth throughout
2008, a trend we expect to continue through 2009. The reduction in customer
growth is primarily a result of much slower growth in the residential housing
markets throughout our service territories. This trend has been offset slightly
by growth in the commercial customer segment in certain areas, primarily as a
result of conversions to natural gas from other fuel sources. In addition, we
continue to experience some customer loss because of higher natural gas prices
and competition from alternative fuel sources, including incentives offered by
the local electric utilities to switch to electric
alternatives.
We
continue to use a variety of targeted marketing programs to attract new
customers and to retain existing customers. These efforts include working to add
residential customers, multifamily complexes and commercial customers who use
natural gas for purposes other than space heating. In addition, we partner with
numerous entities to market the benefits of gas appliances and to identify
potential retention options early in the process for those customers who might
consider converting to alternative fuels.
Collective
Bargaining Agreements
The
following table provides information about the collective bargaining agreements
to which our natural gas utilities are parties. This represents approximately
12% of our total employees.
|
|
Approximate
# of Employees
|
|
Contract
Expiration Date
|
Elizabethtown
Gas
Utility
Workers Union of America (Local No. 424)
|
|
|
160
|
|
Nov.
2009
|
Virginia Natural
Gas
International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Local No. 50)
|
|
|
126
|
|
May
2010
|
Total
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
Our
retail energy operations segment consists of SouthStar, a joint venture owned
70% by our subsidiary, Georgia Natural Gas Company, and 30% by Piedmont.
SouthStar markets natural gas and related services under the trade name Georgia
Natural Gas to retail customers on an unregulated basis, primarily in Georgia as
well as to commercial and industrial customers, principally in Florida, Ohio,
Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama. Based on its market
share, SouthStar is the largest Marketer of natural gas in Georgia, with average
customers in excess of 525,000 over the last three years.
SouthStar
is governed by an executive committee, which is comprised of six members, three
representatives from AGL Resources and three from Piedmont. Under a joint
venture agreement, all significant management decisions require the unanimous
approval of the SouthStar executive committee; accordingly, our 70% financial
interest is considered to be noncontrolling. Although our ownership interest in
the SouthStar partnership is 70%, under an amended and restated joint venture
agreement executed in March 2004, SouthStar's earnings are allocated 75% to us
and 25% to Piedmont except for earnings related to customers in Ohio and
Florida, which are allocated 70% to us and 30% to Piedmont. We record the
earnings allocated to Piedmont as a minority interest in our
consolidated statements of income
, and
we record Piedmont’s portion of SouthStar’s capital as a minority interest in
our
consolidated balance
sheets
.
The
restated agreement includes a series of options granting us the evergreen
opportunity to purchase all or a portion of Piedmont’s ownership interest in
SouthStar. We have the right to exercise an option to purchase on or before
November of each year, with the purchase being effective as of January 1, of the
following year. The option, effective November 1, 2009, allows us to purchase
100% of Piedmont’s ownership interest. If we were to exercise any option to
purchase less than 100% of Piedmont’s ownership interest in SouthStar, Piedmont,
at its discretion, could require us to purchase their entire ownership interest.
The purchase price, in any exercise of our option, would be based on the then
current fair market value of SouthStar.
SouthStar’s
operations are sensitive to customer consumption patterns similar to those
affecting our utility operations. SouthStar uses a variety of hedging
strategies, such as futures, options, swaps, weather derivative instruments and
other risk management tools, to mitigate the potential effect of these issues
and commodity price risk on its operations. For more information on
SouthStar’s energy marketing and risk management activities, see
Item 7a, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
About Market Risk - Commodity Price Risk.”
Competition
SouthStar competes with
other energy marketers to provide natural gas and related services to customers
in Georgia and the Southeast. SouthStar’s operation in Georgia is currently in
direct competition with other Marketers to provide natural gas to customers in
Georgia. In addition, similar to our distribution operations, SouthStar faces
competition based on customer preferences for natural gas compared to other
energy products and the comparative prices of those products. Also, price
volatility in the wholesale natural gas commodity market and related significant
increases in the cost of natural gas billed to SouthStar’s customers have
contributed to an increase in competition for residential and commercial
customers.
Operating
margin
SouthStar generates
operating margin primarily in three ways. The first is through the sale of
natural gas to residential, commercial and industrial customers, primarily in
Georgia where SouthStar captures a spread between wholesale and retail natural
gas prices. The second is through the collection of monthly service fees and
customer late payment fees.
SouthStar
evaluates the combination of these two retail price components to ensure such
pricing is structured to cover related retail customer costs, such as bad debt
expense, customer service and billing, and lost and unaccounted-for gas, and to
provide a reasonable profit, as well as being competitive to attract new
customers and maintain market share. SouthStar’s operating margin is affected by
seasonal weather, natural gas prices, customer growth and their related market
share in Georgia, which has historically been in excess of approximately 34%,
based on customer count. SouthStar employs strategies to attract and retain
a higher credit-quality customer base. These strategies result not only in
higher operating margin, as these customers tend to utilize higher volumes of
natural gas, but also help to mitigate bad debt expense due to the higher
credit-quality of these customers.
The third
way SouthStar generates operating margin is through its commercial operations of
optimizing storage and transportation assets and effectively managing commodity
risk, which enables SouthStar to maintain competitive retail prices and
operating margin. SouthStar is allocated storage and pipeline capacity that is
used to supply natural gas to its customers in Georgia. Through hedging
transactions, SouthStar manages exposures arising from changing commodity prices
using natural gas storage transactions to capture operating margin from
natural gas pricing differences that occur over time. SouthStar’s risk
management policies allow the use of derivative instruments for hedging and risk
management purposes but prohibit the use of derivative instruments for
speculative purposes.
SouthStar
accounts for its natural gas inventories at the LOCOM price. SouthStar evaluates
the weighted average cost of its natural gas inventories against market prices
and determines whether any declines in market prices below the weighted average
cost are other than temporary. For declines considered to be other than
temporary, SouthStar records adjustments to the cost of gas (LOCOM adjustments)
in our consolidated statement of income to reduce the weighted average cost of
the natural gas inventory to the current market price. SouthStar recorded the
following LOCOM adjustments.
|
|
For
the years ended Dec. 31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
LOCOM
adjustments
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
SouthStar
also enters into weather derivative instruments to stabilize operating margin
profits in the event of warmer-than-normal and colder-than-normal weather in the
winter months. These contracts are accounted for using the intrinsic value
method under EITF 99-02
.
The weather derivative
contracts contain settlement provisions based on cumulative heating degree days
for the covered periods. SouthStar entered into weather derivatives (swaps and
options) for the last three heating seasons. The net gains or losses on
these weather derivatives were largely offset by corresponding decreases or
increases in operating margin due to the warmer or colder weather the
hedges were designed to protect against.
Our
wholesale services segment consists primarily of Sequent, our subsidiary
involved in asset management and optimization, storage, transportation, producer
and peaking services and wholesale marketing. Sequent seeks asset optimization
opportunities, which focus on capturing the value from idle or underutilized
assets, typically by participating in transactions to take advantage of pricing
differences between varying markets and time horizons within the natural gas
supply, storage and transportation markets to generate earnings. These
activities are generally referred to as arbitrage opportunities.
Sequent’s
profitability is driven by volatility in the natural gas marketplace. Volatility
arises from a number of factors such as weather fluctuations or the change in
supply of, or demand for, natural gas in different regions of the country.
Sequent seeks to capture value from the price disparity across geographic
locations and various time horizons (location and seasonal spreads). In doing
so, Sequent also seeks to mitigate the risks associated with this volatility and
protect its margin through a variety of risk management and economic hedging
activities.
Sequent
provides its customers with natural gas from the major producing regions and
market hubs in the U.S. and Canada. Sequent acquires transportation and storage
capacity to meet its delivery requirements and customer obligations in the
marketplace. Sequent’s customers benefit from its logistics expertise and
ability to deliver natural gas at prices that are advantageous relative to other
alternatives available to its customers.
Storage inventory
outlook
The following graph presents the NYMEX forward natural gas prices
as of December 31, 2008, December 31, 2007 and September 30, 2008, for the
period of January 2009 through December 2009, and reflects the prices at which
Sequent could buy natural gas at the Henry Hub for delivery in the same time
period. The Henry Hub is the largest centralized point for natural gas spot and
futures trading in the United States. The NYMEX uses the Henry Hub as the point
of delivery for its natural gas futures contracts. Many natural gas marketers
also use the Henry Hub as their physical contract delivery point or their price
benchmark for spot trades of natural gas.
Sequent’s
expected natural gas withdrawals from physical salt dome and reservoir storage
are presented in the following table along with the operating revenues expected
at the time of withdrawal. Sequent’s expected operating revenues are net of the
estimated impact of regulatory sharing and reflect the amounts that are
realizable in future periods based on the inventory withdrawal schedule and
forward natural gas prices at December 31, 2008. Sequent’s storage inventory is
economically hedged with futures contracts, which results in an overall
locked-in margin, timing notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Withdrawal
schedule
(
in
Bcf
)
|
|
|
|
Salt dome
(WACOG
$5.67)
|
|
|
Reservoir
(WACOG
$5.68)
|
|
|
Expected
operating revenues
(in
millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
quarter
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
$
|
(0.4
|
)
|
Second
quarter
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Third
quarter
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Due to
the storage hedge gains and LOCOM adjustments reported in 2008, Sequent expects
no additional operating revenue in 2009 from storage withdrawals of existing
inventory. Expected operating revenues will change in the future as Sequent
injects natural gas into inventory, adjusts its injection and withdrawal plans
in response to changes in market conditions in future months and as forward
NYMEX prices fluctuate. For more information on Sequent’s energy marketing and
risk management activities, see
Item 7a,
“Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk - Commodity Price
Risk.”
Competition
Sequent competes for
asset management contracts with other energy wholesalers, often through a
competitive bidding process.
Asset Management
Transactions
Sequent’s asset
management customers include affiliated utilities, nonaffiliated utilities,
municipal utilities, power generators and large industrial customers. These
customers, due to seasonal demand or levels of activity, may have contracts for
transportation and storage capacity, which may exceed their actual requirements.
Sequent enters into structured agreements with these customers, whereby Sequent,
on behalf of the customer, optimizes the transportation and storage capacity
during periods when customers do not use it for their own needs. Sequent may
capture incremental operating margin through optimization, and either share
margins with the customers or pay them a fixed amount
.
The FERC
recently issued Order 712
, which
clarifies capacity release rules for asset management relationships. As Order
712 has removed uncertainties associated with certain aspects of some asset
management services, we expect there may be an increase in customers seeking
these services during 2009. This could provide us with additional opportunities
in this portion of Sequent’s business. Until the market further develops under
the requirements of Order 712, we are unable to predict what impact this may
have on our wholesale business.
Sequent
is actively negotiating the renewal of its remaining affiliate asset management
agreement with Virginia Natural Gas scheduled to expire in 2009. The following
table provides information on Sequent’s asset management agreements with
affiliated utilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Profit
sharing / fees payments
|
|
In
millions
|
Expiration
date
|
|
%
Shared
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Virginia
Natural Gas
|
Mar
2009
|
|
(A)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
Chattanooga
Gas
|
Mar
2011
|
|
|
50%
(B)
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Elizabethtown
Gas
|
Mar
2011
|
|
(A)
(B)
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Atlanta
Gas Light
|
Mar
2012
|
|
up
to 60% (B)
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Florida
City Gas
|
Mar
2013
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
(A)
|
Shared
on a tiered structure.
|
(B)
|
Includes
aggregate annual minimum payments of $12
million.
|
Transportation
Transactions
Sequent contracts for
natural gas transportation capacity and participates in transactions that manage
the natural gas commodity and transportation costs in an attempt to achieve the
lowest cost to serve its various markets. Sequent seeks to optimize this process
on a daily basis as market conditions change by evaluating all the natural gas
supplies, transportation alternatives and markets to which it has access and
identifying the lowest-cost alternatives to serve the various markets. This
enables Sequent to capture geographic pricing differences across these various
markets as delivered natural gas prices change.
As
Sequent executes transactions to secure transportation capacity, it often enters
into forward financial contracts to hedge its positions and lock-in a margin on
future transportation activities. The hedging instruments are derivatives, and
Sequent reflects changes in the derivatives’ fair value in its reported
operating results in the period of change, which can be in periods prior to
actual utilization of the transportation capacity. The following table lists
Sequent’s reported unrealized gains associated with transportation capacity
hedges. In prior years, these amounts have been realized as these positions
settle in subsequent periods, and this is expected to be the case for unrealized
gains in 2008.
|
|
For
the year ended December 31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Unrealized
gains
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
During
2008, Sequent negotiated an agreement for 40,000 dekatherms per day of
transportation capacity for a period of 25 years beginning in August 2009. Upon
execution of this agreement, we will include approximately $89 million of future
demand payments associated with this capacity within our unrecorded contractual
obligations and commitment disclosures. As with its other transportation
capacity agreements, Sequent has and will identify opportunities to lock-in
economic value associated with this capacity through the use of financial
hedges. Since the duration of this agreement will be significantly longer than
the average duration of Sequent’s portfolio, the hedging of the capacity has
increased our exposure to hedge gains and losses as well as potentially
increasing VaR once the contract is executed. During the third quarter of 2008,
we began executing hedging transactions related to this transportation capacity,
and recorded associated hedge gains of $9 million during 2008 associated with
this capacity; however there was no significant impact to VaR due to the effect
of other positions in the portfolio.
Producer
Services
Sequent’s producer
services business primarily focuses on aggregating natural gas supply from
various small and medium-sized producers located throughout the natural gas
production areas of the United States. Sequent provides producers with certain
logistical and risk management services that offer them attractive options to
move their supply into the pipeline grid.
Park and Loan
Transactions
Sequent routinely enters
into park and loan transactions with various pipelines, which allow Sequent to
park gas on, or borrow gas from, the pipeline in one period and reclaim gas
from, or repay gas to, the pipeline in a subsequent period. The economics of
these transactions are evaluated and price risks are managed in much the same
way traditional reservoir and salt dome storage transactions are evaluated and
managed.
Sequent
enters into forward NYMEX contracts to hedge its park and loan transactions.
While the hedging instruments mitigate the price risk associated with the
delivery and receipt of natural gas, they can also result in volatility in
Sequent’s reported results during the period before the initial delivery or
receipt of natural gas. During this period, if the forward NYMEX prices in the
months of delivery and receipt do not change in equal amounts, Sequent will
report a net unrealized gain or loss on the hedges.
Sequent’s
results were affected by unrealized hedge gains on park and loan activities of
$9 million during 2008, but Sequent had no significant gains or losses on park
and loan hedges during 2007 or 2006.
Mark-to-Market
Versus Lower of Average Cost or Market
Sequent purchases
natural gas for storage when the current market price it pays plus the cost for
transportation and storage is less than the market price it anticipates it could
receive in the future. Sequent attempts to mitigate substantially all of the
commodity price risk associated with its storage portfolio and uses derivative
instruments to reduce the risk associated with future changes in the price of
natural gas. Sequent sells NYMEX futures contracts or OTC derivatives in forward
months to substantially lock in the operating revenue it will ultimately realize
when the stored gas is actually sold.
We view
Sequent’s trading margins from two perspectives. First, we base our commercial
decisions on economic value, which is defined as the locked-in operating revenue
to be realized at the time the physical gas is withdrawn from storage and sold
and the derivative instrument used to economically hedge natural gas price risk
on that physical storage is settled. Second is the GAAP reported value both in
periods prior to and in the period of physical withdrawal and sale of inventory.
The GAAP amount is affected by the process of accounting for the financial
hedging instruments in interim periods at fair value between the period when the
natural gas is injected into storage and when it is ultimately withdrawn and the
financial instruments are settled. The change in the fair value of the hedging
instruments is recognized in earnings in the period of change and is recorded as
unrealized gains or losses. The actual value, less any interim recognition of
gains or losses on hedges and adjustments for LOCOM, is realized when the
natural gas is delivered to its ultimate customer.
Sequent
accounts for natural gas stored in inventory differently than the derivatives
Sequent uses to mitigate the commodity price risk associated with its storage
portfolio. The natural gas that Sequent purchases and injects into storage is
accounted for at the lower of average cost or current market value. The
derivatives that Sequent uses to mitigate commodity price risk are accounted for
at fair value and marked to market each period. This difference in accounting
treatment can result in volatility in Sequent’s reported results, even though
the expected operating revenue is essentially unchanged from the date the
transactions were initiated. These accounting differences also affect the
comparability of Sequent’s period-over-period results, since changes in forward
NYMEX prices do not increase and decrease on a consistent basis from year to
year.
During
the first half of 2008, the reported results were negatively affected by sharp
increases in forward NYMEX prices, but in the second half of 2008 forward NYMEX
prices dropped to below 2007 levels. The overall result was more significant
unrealized gains during 2008, which contributed to the favorable variance
between 2008 and 2007. During most of 2007 and 2006, Sequent’s reported results
were positively affected by decreases in forward NYMEX prices, which resulted in
the recognition of unrealized gains; however, the effect was more significant
for 2006. As a result the more significant unrealized gains during 2006
increased the unfavorable variance between 2007 and 2006.
Our
energy investments segment includes a number of businesses that are related and
complementary to our primary business. The most significant of these businesses
is our natural gas storage business, which develops, acquires and operates
high-deliverability salt-dome and other storage assets in the Gulf Coast region
of the United States. While this business also can generate additional revenue
during times of peak market demand for natural gas storage services, the
majority of our storage services are covered under a portfolio of short, medium
and long-term contracts at a fixed market rate.
Jefferson
Island
This wholly owned subsidiary operates a salt dome storage and hub
facility in Louisiana, approximately eight miles from the Henry Hub. The storage
facility is regulated by the Louisiana DNR and by the FERC, which has limited
regulatory authority over storage and transportation services. Jefferson Island
provides storage and hub services through its direct connection to the Henry Hub
via the Sabine Pipeline and its interconnection with eight other pipelines in
the area. Jefferson Island’s entire portfolio is under firm subscription for the
current heating season.
In August
2006, the Office of Mineral Resources of the Louisiana DNR informed Jefferson
Island that its mineral lease – which authorizes salt extraction to create two
new storage caverns – at Lake Peigneur had been terminated. The Louisiana DNR
identified two bases for the termination: (1) failure to make certain mining
leasehold payments in a timely manner, and (2) the absence of salt mining
operations for six months.
In
September 2006, Jefferson Island filed suit against the State of
Louisiana, in the 19
th
Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, to maintain its lease to complete an
ongoing natural gas storage expansion project in Louisiana. The project would
add two salt dome storage caverns under Lake Peigneur to the two caverns
currently owned and operated by Jefferson Island. In its suit, Jefferson Island
alleges that the Louisiana DNR accepted all leasehold payments without
reservation and never provided Jefferson Island with notice and opportunity to
cure the alleged late payments, as required by state law. In its answer to the
suit, the State denied that anyone with proper authority approved late payments.
As to the second basis for termination, the suit contends that Jefferson
Island’s lease with the State of Louisiana was amended in 2004 so that mining
operations are no longer required to maintain the lease. The State’s answer
denies that the 2004 amendment was properly authorized. In March 2008, Jefferson
Island served discovery requests on the State of Louisiana and sought a trial
date in this lawsuit. Jefferson Island also asserted additional claims against
the State seeking to obtain a declaratory ruling that Jefferson Island’s surface
lease, under which it operates its existing two storage caverns, authorizes the
creation of the two new expansion caverns separate and apart from the mineral
lease challenged by the State.
In
addition, in June 2008, the State of Louisiana passed legislation restricting
water usage from the Chicot aquifer, which is a main source of fresh water
required for the expansion of our Jefferson Island capacity. We contend that
this legislation is unconstitutional and have sought to amend the pending
litigation to seek a declaration that the legislation is invalid and cannot be
enforced. Even if we are not successful on those grounds, we believe the
legislation does not materially impact the feasibility of the expansion project.
During 2008 and early 2009 we aggressively pursued our litigation. However, we
are not able to predict the outcome of the litigation. As of January 2009, our
current estimate of costs incurred that would be considered unusable if the
Louisiana DNR was successful in terminating our lease and causing us to cease
the expansion project is approximately $6 million.
Golden Triangle
Storage
In
December 2006, we announced that our wholly-owned subsidiary, Golden Triangle
Storage, plans to build a natural gas storage facility in the Beaumont, Texas
area in the Spindletop salt dome. The project will initially consist of two
underground salt dome storage caverns approximately a half-mile to a mile below
ground that will hold about 12 Bcf of working natural gas storage capacity
initially, or a total cavern capacity of approximately 17 Bcf. The facility
potentially can be expanded to a total of five caverns with 38 Bcf of working
natural gas storage capacity in the future based on customer interest. Golden
Triangle Storage also intends to build an approximately nine-mile dual 24”
natural gas pipeline to connect the storage facility with three interstate and
three intrastate pipelines. In May 2007, Golden Triangle Storage held a
non-binding open season for service offerings at the proposed facility, which
resulted in indications of market support for the facility.
In
December 2007, Golden Triangle Storage received an order from the FERC granting
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the
storage facility and approving market-based rates for services to be provided.
We accepted this FERC order in January 2008. The FERC will serve as the lead
agency overseeing the participation of a number of other federal, state and
local agencies in reviewing and permitting the facility. In May 2008, Golden
Triangle Storage started construction on the first cavern. Hurricanes Gustav and
Ike caused some damage and minor delays in September 2008, but our timelines
associated with commencement of commercial operations remain on
schedule.
We
previously estimated, based on then current prices for labor, materials and pad
gas, that costs to construct the facility would be approximately $265
million. However, prices for labor and materials have risen significantly
in the ensuing months, increasing the current estimated construction cost by
approximately 10% to 20%. The actual project costs depend upon the facility’s
configuration, materials, drilling costs, financing costs and the amount and
cost of pad gas, which includes volumes of non-working natural gas used to
maintain the operational integrity of the cavern facility. The costs for
approximately 64% of these items have not been fixed and are subject to
continued variability during construction. Further, since we are not able
to predict whether these costs of construction will continue to increase,
moderate or decrease from current levels, we believe that there could be
continued volatility in the construction cost estimates.
AGL
Networks
This wholly owned subsidiary provides telecommunications conduit
and available for use or “dark” fiber optic cable. AGL Networks leases and sells
its fiber to a variety of customers in the Atlanta, Georgia and Phoenix, Arizona
metropolitan areas, with a small presence in other cities in the United States.
Its customers include local, regional and national telecommunications companies,
internet service providers, educational institutions and other commercial
entities. AGL Networks typically provides underground conduit and dark fiber to
its customers under leasing arrangements with terms that vary from one to twenty
years. In addition, AGL Networks offers telecommunications construction services
to its customers. AGL Networks’ competitors are any entities that have laid or
will lay conduit and fiber on the same route as AGL Networks in the respective
metropolitan areas.
Our
corporate segment includes our nonoperating business units, including AGSC and
AGL Capital. AGL Capital, our wholly owned subsidiary, provides for our ongoing
financing needs through a commercial paper program, the issuance of various debt
and hybrid securities, and other financing arrangements.
We
allocate substantially all of AGSC’s operating expenses and interest costs to
our operating segments in accordance with state regulations. Our corporate
segment also includes intercompany eliminations for transactions between our
operating business segments. Our EBIT results include the impact of these
allocations to the various operating segments.
Our
corporate segment also includes Pivotal Energy Development, which coordinates
among our related operating segments the development, construction or
acquisition of assets, such as storage facilities, related and complementary to
our primary businesses within the southeastern, mid-Atlantic and northeastern
regions in order to extend our natural gas capabilities and improve system
reliability while enhancing service to our customers in those areas. The focus
of Pivotal Energy Development’s commercial activities is to improve the
economics of system reliability and natural gas deliverability in these targeted
regions.
Employees
As of
January 31, 2009, we employed a total of 2,389 employees, and we believe that
our relations with them are good.
Additional
Information
Hedges
Changes
in commodity prices subject a significant portion of our operations to earnings
variability. Our nonutility businesses principally use physical and financial
arrangements to reduce the risks associated with both weather-related seasonal
fluctuations in market conditions and changing commodity prices. In addition,
because these economic hedges may not qualify, or are not designated for hedge
accounting treatment, our reported earnings for the wholesale services and
retail energy operations segments reflect changes in the fair values of certain
derivatives. These values may change significantly from period to period and are
reflected as gains or losses within our operating revenues or our OCI for those
derivative instruments that qualify and are designated as accounting
hedges.
Elizabethtown
Gas utilizes certain derivatives in accordance with a directive from the New
Jersey Commission to create a hedging program to hedge the impact of market
fluctuations in natural gas prices. These derivative products are accounted for
at fair value each reporting period. In accordance with regulatory requirements,
realized gains and losses related to these derivatives are reflected in
purchased gas costs and ultimately included in billings to customers. Unrealized
gains and losses are reflected as a regulatory asset or liability, as
appropriate, in our condensed consolidated balance sheets.
Seasonality
The
operating revenues and EBIT of our distribution operations, retail energy
operations and wholesale services segments are seasonal. During the heating
season, natural gas usage and operating revenues are generally higher because
more customers are connected to our distribution systems and natural gas usage
is higher in periods of colder weather than in periods of warmer weather.
Occasionally in the summer, Sequent’s operating revenues are impacted due to
peak usage by power generators in response to summer energy demands. Seasonality
also affects the comparison of certain balance sheet items such as receivables,
unbilled revenue, inventories and short-term debt across quarters. However,
these items are comparable when reviewing our annual results.
Approximately
65% of these segments’ operating revenues and 72% of these segments’ EBIT for
the year ended December 31, 2008 were generated during the first and fourth
quarters of 2008, and are reflected in our statements of consolidated income for
the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2008. Our base operating
expenses, excluding cost of gas, interest expense and certain incentive
compensation costs, are incurred relatively equally over any given year. Thus,
our operating results can vary significantly from quarter to quarter as a result
of seasonality.
Available
Information
Detailed
information about us is contained in our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly
reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and other
reports, and amendments to those reports, that we file with, or furnish to, the
SEC. These reports are available free of charge at our website,
www.aglresources.com
,
as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with
or furnish such reports to the SEC. However, our website and any contents
thereof should not be considered to be incorporated by reference into this
document. We will furnish copies of such reports free of charge upon written
request to our Investor Relations department. You can contact our Investor
Relations department at:
AGL Resources
Inc.
Investor Relations - Dept.
1071
P.O. Box
4569
Atlanta, GA
30309-4569
404-584-3801
In Part
III of this Form 10-K, we incorporate by reference from our Proxy Statement for
our 2009 annual meeting of shareholders certain information. We expect to file
that Proxy Statement with the SEC on or about March 16, 2009, and we will make
it available on our website as soon as reasonably practicable. Please refer to
the Proxy Statement when it is available.
Additionally,
our corporate governance guidelines, code of ethics, code of business conduct
and the charters of each of our Board of Directors committees are available on
our website. We will furnish copies of such information free of charge upon
written request to our Investor Relations department.
CAUTIONARY
STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain
expectations and projections regarding our future performance referenced in this
report, in other materials we file with the SEC or otherwise release to the
public, and on our website are forward-looking statements. Senior officers may
also make verbal statements to analysts, investors, regulators, the media and
others that are forward-looking. Forward-looking statements involve matters that
are not historical facts, such as statements in “Item 7, Management’s Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere
regarding our future operations, prospects, strategies, financial condition,
economic performance (including growth and earnings), industry conditions and
demand for our products and services. We have tried, whenever possible, to
identify these statements by using words such as "anticipate," "assume,"
“believe,” "can," "could," "estimate," "expect," "forecast," "future," “goal,”
"indicate," "intend," "may," “outlook,” "plan," “potential,” "predict,"
"project,” "seek," "should," "target," "would," and similar
expressions.
You
are cautioned not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Our
forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are
based on currently available competitive, financial and economic data along with
our operating plans. While we believe that our expectations for the future are
reasonable in view of the currently available information, our expectations are
subject to future events, risks and inherent uncertainties, as well as
potentially inaccurate assumptions, and there are numerous factors - many beyond
our control - that could cause results to differ significantly from our
expectations. Such events, risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited
to those set forth below and in the other documents that we file with the SEC.
We note these factors for investors as permitted by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. There also may be other factors that we cannot
anticipate or that are not described in this report, generally because we do not
perceive them to be material, which could cause results to differ significantly
from our expectations.
Forward-looking
statements are only as of the date they are made, and we do not undertake any
obligation to update these statements to reflect subsequent circumstances or
events. You are advised, however, to review any further disclosures we make on
related subjects in our Form 10-Q and Form 8-K reports to the SEC.
Risks Related to Our
Business
Risks
related to the regulation of our businesses could affect the rates we are able
to charge, our costs and our profitability.
Our
businesses are subject to regulation by federal, state and local regulatory
authorities. In particular, at the federal level our businesses are regulated by
the FERC. At the state level, our businesses are regulated by the Georgia,
Tennessee, New Jersey, Florida, Virginia and Maryland Commissions.
These
authorities regulate many aspects of our operations, including construction and
maintenance of facilities, operations, safety, rates that we charge customers,
rates of return, the authorized cost of capital, recovery of pipeline
replacement and environmental remediation costs, relationships with our
affiliates, and carrying costs we charge Marketers selling retail natural gas in
Georgia for gas held in storage for their customer accounts. Our ability to
obtain rate increases and rate supplements to maintain our current rates of
return and recover regulatory assets and liabilities recorded in accordance with
SFAS 71 depends on regulatory discretion, and there can be no assurance that we
will be able to obtain rate increases or rate supplements or continue receiving
our currently authorized rates of return including the recovery of our
regulatory assets and liabilities. In addition, if we fail to comply with
applicable regulations, we could be subject to fines, penalties or other
enforcement action by the authorities that regulate our operations, or otherwise
be subject to material costs and liabilities.
Deregulation
in the natural gas industry is the separation of the provision and pricing of
local distribution gas services into discrete components. Deregulation typically
focuses on the separation of the gas distribution business from the gas sales
business and is intended to cause the opening of the formerly regulated sales
business to alternative unregulated suppliers of gas sales
services.
In 1997,
the Georgia legislature enacted the Deregulation Act. To date, Georgia is the
only state in the nation that has fully deregulated gas distribution operations,
which ultimately resulted in Atlanta Gas Light exiting the retail natural gas
sales business while retaining its gas distribution operations. Marketers,
including our majority-owned subsidiary, SouthStar, then assumed the retail gas
sales responsibility at deregulated prices. The deregulation process required
Atlanta Gas Light to completely reorganize its operations and personnel at
significant expense. It is possible that the legislature could reverse or amend
portions of the deregulation process.
Our
business is subject to environmental regulation in all jurisdictions in which we
operate, and our costs to comply are significant. Any changes in existing
environmental regulation could affect our results of operations and financial
condition.
Our
operations and properties are subject to extensive environmental regulation
pursuant to a variety of federal, state and municipal laws and regulations. Such
environmental legislation imposes, among other things, restrictions, liabilities
and obligations in connection with storage, transportation, treatment and
disposal of hazardous substances and waste and in connection with spills,
releases and emissions of various substances into the environment. Environmental
legislation also requires that our facilities, sites and other properties
associated with our operations be operated, maintained, abandoned and reclaimed
to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities. Our current costs to
comply with these laws and regulations are significant to our results of
operations and financial condition. Failure to comply with these laws and
regulations and failure to obtain any required permits and licenses may expose
us to fines, penalties or interruptions in our operations that could be material
to our results of operations.
In
addition, claims against us under environmental laws and regulations could
result in material costs and liabilities. Existing environmental regulations
could also be revised or reinterpreted, new laws and regulations could be
adopted or become applicable to us or our facilities, and future changes in
environmental laws and regulations could occur. With the trend toward stricter
standards, greater regulation, more extensive permit requirements and an
increase in the number and types of assets operated by us subject to
environmental regulation, our environmental expenditures could increase in the
future, particularly if those costs are not fully recoverable from our
customers. Additionally, the discovery of presently unknown environmental
conditions could give rise to expenditures and liabilities, including fines or
penalties, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results
of operations or financial condition.
We
may be exposed to certain regulatory and financial risks related to climate
change.
Climate
change is receiving ever increasing attention from scientists and legislators
alike. The debate is ongoing as to the extent to which our climate is changing,
the potential causes of this change and its potential impacts. Some attribute
global warming to increased levels of greenhouse gases, including carbon
dioxide, which has led to significant legislative and regulatory efforts to
limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The
international treaty relating to global warming (commonly known as the Kyoto
Protocol) would have required reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases,
primarily carbon dioxide and methane. The Kyoto Protocol became effective
(without ratification by the U.S.) in February 2005. Presently there are no
federally mandated greenhouse gas reduction requirements in the U.S. as current
policy favors voluntary reductions, increased operating efficiency and continued
research and technology development. The likelihood of any federal mandatory
carbon dioxide emissions reduction program being adopted in the near future and
the specific requirements of any such program is uncertain. However, President
Obama has stated that to combat global warming he will propose reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and further reduce levels an
additional 80% by 2050. He is also expected to push an economic stimulus package
that is heavily weighted towards the energy sector.
There are
a number of other legislative and regulatory proposals to address greenhouse gas
emissions, which are in various phases of discussion or implementation. The
outcome of federal and state actions to address global climate change could
result in a variety of regulatory programs including potential new regulations,
additional charges to fund energy efficiency activities, or other regulatory
actions. These actions could:
·
|
result
in increased costs associated with our
operations
|
·
|
increase
other costs to our business
|
·
|
affect
the demand for natural gas, and
|
·
|
impact
the prices we charge our customers.
|
Because
natural gas is a fossil fuel with low carbon content, it is possible that future
carbon constraints could create additional demand for natural gas, both for
production of electricity and direct use in homes and businesses.
Any
adoption by federal or state governments mandating a substantial reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions could have far-reaching and significant impacts on the
energy industry. We cannot predict the potential impact of such laws or
regulations on our future consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.
Our
infrastructure improvement and customer growth may be restricted by the
capital-intensive nature of our business.
We must
construct additions to our natural gas distribution system to continue the
expansion of our customer base. We may also need to construct expansions of our
existing natural gas storage facilities or develop and construct new natural gas
storage facilities. The cost of this construction may be affected by the cost of
obtaining government and other approvals, development project delays, adequacy
of supply of diversified vendors, or unexpected changes in project costs.
Weather, general economic conditions and the cost of funds to finance our
capital projects can materially alter the cost, and projected construction
schedule and completion timeline of a project. Our cash flows may not be fully
adequate to finance the cost of this construction. As a result, we may be
required to fund a portion of our cash needs through borrowings or the issuance
of common stock, or both. For our distribution operations segment, this may
limit our ability to expand our infrastructure to connect new customers due to
limits on the amount we can economically invest, which shifts costs to potential
customers and may make it uneconomical for them to connect to our distribution
systems. For our natural gas storage business, this may significantly reduce our
earnings and return on investment from what would be expected for this business,
or may impair our ability to complete the expansions or development
projects.
Transporting
and storing natural gas involves numerous risks that may result in accidents and
other operating risks and costs.
Our gas
distribution and storage activities involve a variety of inherent hazards and
operating risks, such as leaks, accidents and mechanical problems, which could
cause substantial financial losses. In addition, these risks could result in
loss of human life, significant damage to property, environmental pollution and
impairment of our operations, which in turn could lead to substantial losses to
us. In accordance with customary industry practice, we maintain insurance
against some, but not all, of these risks and losses. The location of pipelines
and storage facilities near populated areas, including residential areas,
commercial business centers and industrial sites, could increase the level of
damages resulting from these risks. The occurrence of any of these events not
fully covered by insurance could adversely affect our financial position and
results of operations.
We
face increasing competition, and if we are unable to compete effectively, our
revenues, operating results and financial condition will be adversely affected
which may limit our ability to grow our business.
The
natural gas business is highly competitive, and we are facing increasing
competition from other companies that supply energy, including electric
companies, oil and propane providers and, in some cases, energy marketing and
trading companies. In particular, the success of our investment in SouthStar is
affected by the competition SouthStar faces from other energy marketers
providing retail natural gas services in the Southeast. Natural gas competes
with other forms of energy. The primary competitive factor is price. Changes in
the price or availability of natural gas relative to other forms of energy and
the ability of end-users to convert to alternative fuels affect the demand for
natural gas. In the case of commercial, industrial and agricultural customers,
adverse economic conditions, including higher gas costs, could also cause these
customers to bypass or disconnect from our systems in favor of special
competitive contracts with lower per-unit costs.
Our
wholesale services segment competes with national and regional full-service
energy providers, energy merchants and producers and pipelines for sales based
on our ability to aggregate competitively priced commodities with transportation
and storage capacity. Some of our competitors are larger and better capitalized
than we are and have more national and global exposure than we do. The
consolidation of this industry and the pricing to gain market share may affect
our operating margin. We expect this trend to continue in the near term, and the
increasing competition for asset management deals could result in downward
pressure on the volume of transactions and the related operating margin
available in this portion of Sequent’s business.
The
continuation of recent economic conditions could adversely affect our customers
and negatively impact our financial results.
The
slowdown in the U.S. economy, along with increased mortgage defaults, and
significant decreases in new home construction, home values and investment
assets, has adversely impacted the financial well-being of many U.S. households.
We cannot predict if the administrative and legislative actions to address this
situation will be successful in reducing the severity or duration of this
recession. As a result, our customers may use less gas in future heating seasons
and it may become more difficult for them to pay their natural gas bills. This
may slow collections and lead to higher than normal levels of accounts
receivables, bad debt and financing requirements.
A
significant portion of our accounts receivable is subject to collection risks,
due in part to a concentration of credit risk in Georgia and at
Sequent.
We have
accounts receivable collection risk in Georgia due to a concentration of credit
risk related to the provision of natural gas services to Marketers. At December
31, 2008, Atlanta Gas Light had 11 certificated and active Marketers in Georgia,
four of which (based on customer count and including SouthStar) accounted for
approximately 31%
of our consolidated
operating margin for 2008. As a result, Atlanta Gas Light depends on a
concentrated number of customers for revenues. The provisions of Atlanta Gas
Light’s tariff allow it to obtain security support in an amount equal to no less
than two times a Marketer’s highest month’s estimated bill in the form of cash
deposits, letters of credit, surety bonds or guaranties. The failure of these
Marketers to pay Atlanta Gas Light could adversely affect Atlanta Gas Light’s
business and results of operations and expose it to difficulties in collecting
Atlanta Gas Light’s accounts receivable. AGL Resources provides a guarantee to
Atlanta Gas Light as security support for SouthStar. Additionally, SouthStar
markets directly to end-use customers and has periodically experienced credit
losses as a result of severe cold weather or high prices for natural gas that
increase customers’ bills and, consequently, impair customers’ ability to
pay.
Sequent
often extends credit to its counterparties. Despite performing credit analyses
prior to extending credit and seeking to effectuate netting agreements, Sequent
is exposed to the risk that it may not be able to collect amounts owed to it. If
the counterparty to such a transaction fails to perform and any collateral
Sequent has secured is inadequate, Sequent could experience material financial
losses. Further, Sequent has a concentration of credit risk, which could subject
a significant portion of its credit exposure to collection risks. Approximately
63% of Sequent’s credit exposure is concentrated in its top 20 counterparties.
Most of this concentration is with counterparties that are either load-serving
utilities or end-use customers that have supplied some level of credit support.
Default by any of these counterparties in their obligations to pay amounts due
Sequent could result in credit losses that would negatively impact our wholesale
services segment.
The asset management arrangements
between Sequent and our local distribution companies, and between Sequent and
its nonaffiliated customers, may not be renewed or may be renewed at lower
levels, which could have a significant impact on Sequent’s
business.
Sequent
currently manages the storage and transportation assets of our affiliates
Atlanta Gas Light, Chattanooga Gas, Elizabethtown Gas, Elkton Gas, Florida City
Gas, and Virginia Natural Gas and shares profits it earns from the management of
those assets with those customers and their respective customers, except at
Elkton Gas where Sequent is assessed annual fixed-fees payable in monthly
installments. Entry into and renewal of these agreements are subject to
regulatory approval and one is subject to renewal in 2009. In addition, Sequent
has asset management agreements with certain nonaffiliated customers. Sequent’s
results could be significantly impacted if these agreements are not renewed or
are amended or renewed with less favorable terms.
We
are exposed to market risk and may incur losses in wholesale services and retail
energy operations.
The
commodity, storage and transportation portfolios at Sequent and the commodity
and storage portfolios at SouthStar consist of contracts to buy and sell natural
gas commodities, including contracts that are settled by the delivery of the
commodity or cash. If the values of these contracts change in a direction or
manner that we do not anticipate, we could experience financial losses from our
trading activities. Based on a 95% confidence interval and employing a 1-day
holding period for all positions, Sequent’s and SouthStar’s portfolio of
positions as of December 31, 2008 had a 1-day holding period VaR of $2.5 million
and less than $0.1 million, respectively.
Our
accounting results may not be indicative of the risks we are taking or the
economic results we expect for wholesale services.
Although
Sequent enters into various contracts to hedge the value of our energy assets
and operations, the timing of the recognition of profits or losses on the hedges
does not always correspond to the profits or losses on the item being hedged.
The difference in accounting can result in volatility in Sequent’s reported
results, even though the expected operating margin is essentially unchanged from
the date the transactions were initiated.
Changes
in weather conditions may affect our earnings.
Weather
conditions and other natural phenomena can have a large impact on our earnings.
Severe weather conditions can impact our suppliers and the pipelines that
deliver gas to our distribution system. Extended mild weather, during either the
winter or summer period, can have a significant impact on demand for and cost of
natural gas.
We have a
WNA mechanism for Elizabethtown Gas and Chattanooga Gas that partially offsets
the impact of unusually cold or warm weather on residential and commercial
customer billings and our operating margin. At Elizabethtown Gas we could be
required to return a portion of any WNA surcharge to its customers if
Elizabethtown Gas’ return on equity exceeds its authorized return on equity of
10%.
Additionally,
Virginia Natural Gas has a WNA mechanism for its residential customers that
partially offsets the impact of unusually cold or warm weather. In September
2007, the Virginia Commission approved Virginia Natural Gas’ application for an
Experimental Weather Normalization Adjustment Rider (the Rider) for its
commercial customers. The Rider applies to the 2007 and 2008 heating seasons,
with an opportunity for Virginia Natural Gas to extend the Rider for additional
years.
These WNA
regulatory mechanisms are most effective in a reasonable temperature range
relative to normal weather using historical averages. The protection afforded by
the WNA depends on continued regulatory approval. The loss of this continued
regulatory approval could make us more susceptible to weather-related earnings
fluctuations.
Changes
in weather conditions may also impact SouthStar’s earnings. As a result,
SouthStar uses a variety of weather derivative instruments to stabilize the
impact on its operating margin in the event of warmer or colder than normal
weather in the winter months. However, these instruments do not fully protect
SouthStar’s earnings from the effects of unusually warm or cold
weather.
A
decrease in the availability of adequate pipeline transportation capacity could
reduce our revenues and profits.
Our gas
supply depends on the availability of adequate pipeline transportation and
storage capacity. We purchase a substantial portion of our gas supply from
interstate sources. Interstate pipeline companies transport the gas to our
system. A decrease in interstate pipeline capacity available to us or an
increase in competition for interstate pipeline transportation and storage
service could reduce our normal interstate supply of gas.
Our
profitability may decline if the counterparties to Sequent’s asset management
transactions fail to perform in accordance with Sequent’s
agreements.
Sequent
focuses on capturing the value from idle or underutilized energy assets,
typically by executing transactions that balance the needs of various markets
and time horizons. Sequent is exposed to the risk that counterparties to our
transactions will not perform their obligations. Should the counterparties to
these arrangements fail to perform, we might be forced to enter into alternative
hedging arrangements, honor the underlying commitment at then-current market
prices or return a significant portion of the consideration received for gas. In
such events, we might incur additional losses to the extent of amounts, if any,
already paid to or received from counterparties.
We
could incur additional material costs for the environmental condition of some of
our assets, including former manufactured gas plants.
We are
generally responsible for all on-site and certain off-site liabilities
associated with the environmental condition of the natural gas assets that we
have operated, acquired or developed, regardless of when the liabilities arose
and whether they are or were known or unknown. In addition, in connection with
certain acquisitions and sales of assets, we may obtain, or be required to
provide, indemnification against certain environmental liabilities. Before
natural gas was widely available, we manufactured gas from coal and other fuels.
Those manufacturing operations were known as MGPs, which we ceased operating in
the 1950s.
We have
identified ten sites in Georgia and three in Florida where we own all or part of
an MGP site. We are required to investigate possible environmental contamination
at those MGP sites and, if necessary, clean up any contamination. As of December
31, 2008, the soil and sediment remediation program was complete for all Georgia
sites, although groundwater cleanup continues. As of December 31, 2008,
projected costs associated with the MGP sites associated with Atlanta Gas Light
were $38 million. For elements of the MGP program where we still cannot provide
engineering cost estimates, considerable variability remains in future cost
estimates.
In
addition, we are associated with former sites in New Jersey, North Carolina and
other states. Material cleanups of these sites have not been completed nor are
precise estimates available for future cleanup costs and therefore considerable
variability remains in future cost estimates. For the New Jersey sites, cleanup
cost estimates range from $58 million to $116 million. Costs have been estimated
for only one of the non-New Jersey sites, for which current estimates range from
$10 million to $20 million.
Inflation
and increased gas costs could adversely impact our ability to control operating
expenses, increase our level of indebtedness and adversely impact our customer
base.
Inflation
has caused increases in certain operating expenses that have required us to
replace assets at higher costs. We attempt to control costs in part through
implementation of best practices and business process improvements, many of
which are facilitated through investments in information systems and technology.
We have a process in place to continually review the adequacy of our utility gas
rates in relation to the increasing cost of providing service and the inherent
regulatory lag in adjusting those gas rates. Historically, we have been able to
budget and control operating expenses and investments within the amounts
authorized to be collected in rates, and we intend to continue to do so.
However, any inability by us to control our expenses in a reasonable manner
would adversely influence our future results.
Rapid
increases in the price of purchased gas cause us to experience a significant
increase in short-term debt because we must pay suppliers for gas when it is
purchased, which can be significantly in advance of when these costs may be
recovered through the collection of monthly customer bills for gas delivered.
Increases in purchased gas costs also slow our utility collection efforts as
customers are more likely to delay the payment of their gas bills, leading to
higher-than-normal accounts receivable. This situation results in higher
short-term debt levels and increased bad debt expense. Should the price of
purchased gas increase significantly during the upcoming heating season, we
would expect increases in our short-term debt, accounts receivable and bad debt
expense during 2009.
Finally,
higher costs of natural gas in recent years have already caused many of our
utility customers to conserve in the use of our gas services and could lead to
even more customers utilizing such conservation methods or switching to other
competing products. The higher costs have also allowed competition from products
utilizing alternative energy sources for applications that have traditionally
used natural gas, encouraging some customers to move away from natural gas fired
equipment to equipment fueled by other energy sources.
The
cost of providing pension and postretirement health care benefits to eligible
employees and qualified retirees is subject to changes in pension fund values
and changing demographics and may have a material adverse effect on our
financial results.
We have
defined benefit pension and postretirement health care plans for the benefit of
substantially all full-time employees and qualified retirees. The cost of
providing these benefits to eligible current and former employees is subject to
changes in the market value of our pension fund assets, changing demographics,
including longer life expectancy of beneficiaries, changes in health care cost
trends, and an expected increase in the number of eligible former employees over
the next five years.
Any
sustained declines in equity markets and reductions in bond yields may have a
material adverse effect on the value of our pension funds. In these
circumstances, we may be required to recognize an increased pension expense or a
charge to our other comprehensive income to the extent that the pension fund
values are less than the total anticipated liability under the plans. Market
declines in the second half of 2008 resulted in significant losses in the value
of our pension fund assets. As a result, based on the current funding status of
the plans, we would be required to make a minimum contribution to the plans of
approximately $7 million in 2009. We are planning to make additional
contributions in 2009 up to $61 million for a total of up to $68 million, in
order to preserve the current level of benefits under the plans and in
accordance with the funding requirements of the Pension Protection Act. As of
December 31, 2008 our pension plans assets represented 54% or our total pension
plan obligations.
Natural
disasters, terrorist activities and the potential for military and other actions
could adversely affect our businesses.
Natural
disasters may damage our assets. The threat of terrorism and the impact of
retaliatory military and other action by the United States and its allies may
lead to increased political, economic and financial market instability and
volatility in the price of natural gas that could affect our operations. In
addition, future acts of terrorism could be directed against companies operating
in the United States, and companies in the energy industry may face a heightened
risk of exposure to acts of terrorism. These developments have subjected our
operations to increased risks. The insurance industry has also been disrupted by
these events. As a result, the availability of insurance covering risks against
which we and our competitors typically insure may be limited. In addition, the
insurance we are able to obtain may have higher deductibles, higher premiums and
more restrictive policy terms.
Risks Related to Our
Corporate and Financial Structure
We
depend on our ability to successfully access the capital and financial markets.
Any inability to access the capital or financial markets may limit our ability
to execute our business plan or pursue improvements that we may rely on for
future growth.
We rely
on access to both short-term money markets (in the form of commercial paper and
lines of credit) and long-term capital markets as a source of liquidity for
capital and operating requirements not satisfied by the cash flow from our
operations. If we are not able to access financial markets at competitive rates,
our ability to implement our business plan and strategy will be negatively
affected, and we may be forced to postpone, modify or cancel capital projects.
Certain market disruptions may increase our cost of borrowing or affect our
ability to access one or more financial markets. Such market disruptions could
result from:
·
|
adverse
economic conditions
|
·
|
adverse
general capital market conditions
|
·
|
poor
performance and health of the utility industry in
general
|
·
|
bankruptcy
or financial distress of unrelated energy companies or
Marketers
|
·
|
significant
decrease in the demand for natural
gas
|
·
|
adverse
regulatory actions that affect our local gas distribution companies and
our natural gas storage business
|
·
|
terrorist
attacks on our facilities or our suppliers,
or
|
·
|
extreme
weather conditions.
|
The
continued disruption in the credit markets could limit our ability to access
capital and increase our cost of capital.
The
global credit markets have been experiencing significant disruption and
volatility in recent months. In some cases, the ability or willingness of
traditional sources of capital to provide financing has been
reduced.
Historically,
we have accessed the commercial paper markets to finance our short-term working
capital requirements, but the disruption in the credit markets has limited our
access to the commercial paper markets at reasonable interest rates.
Consequently, we have borrowed directly under our Credit Facilities for our
working capital needs. As of December 31, 2008, we had $273 million in
commercial paper outstanding and $500 million outstanding under our Credit
Facilities. During 2008, our borrowings under these facilities along with our
commercial paper were used primarily to purchase natural gas inventories for the
current winter heating season. The amount of our working capital requirements in
the near-term will depend primarily on the market price of natural gas and
weather. Higher natural gas prices may adversely impact our accounts receivable
collections and may require us to increase borrowings under our credit
facilities to fund our operations.
While we
believe we can meet our capital requirements from our operations and the sources
of financing available to us, we can provide no assurance that we will continue
to be able to do so in the future, especially if the market price of natural gas
increases significantly in the near-term. The future effects on our business,
liquidity and financial results of a continuation of current market conditions
could be material and adverse to us, both in the ways described above, or in
ways that we do not currently anticipate.
If
we breach any of the financial covenants under our various credit facilities,
our debt service obligations could be accelerated.
Our
existing Credit Facilities and the SouthStar line of credit contain financial
covenants. If we breach any of the financial covenants under these agreements,
our debt repayment obligations under them could be accelerated. In such event,
we may not be able to refinance or repay all our indebtedness, which would
result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition.
A
downgrade in our credit rating could negatively affect our ability to access
capital.
Our
senior unsecured debt is currently assigned a rating of BBB+ by S&P, Baa1 by
Moody’s and A- by Fitch. Our commercial paper currently is rated A2 by S&P,
P2 by Moody’s and F2 by Fitch. If the rating agencies downgrade our ratings,
particularly below investment grade, it may significantly limit our access to
the commercial paper market and our borrowing costs would increase. In addition,
we would likely be required to pay a higher interest rate in future financings
and our potential pool of investors and funding sources would likely
decrease.
Additionally,
if our credit rating by either S&P or Moody’s falls to non-investment grade
status, we will be required to provide additional support for certain customers
of our wholesale business. As of December 31, 2008, if our credit rating had
fallen below investment grade, we would have been required to provide collateral
of approximately $12 million to continue conducting our wholesale services
business with certain counterparties.
We
are vulnerable to interest rate risk with respect to our debt, which could lead
to changes in interest expense and adversely affect our earnings.
We are
subject to interest rate risk in connection with the issuance of fixed-rate and
variable-rate debt. In order to maintain our desired mix of fixed-rate and
variable-rate debt, we may use interest rate swap agreements and exchange
fixed-rate and variable-rate interest payment obligations over the life of the
arrangements, without exchange of the underlying principal amounts. See
Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
About Market Risk.”
We cannot ensure that we will be successful in
structuring such swap agreements to manage our risks effectively. If we are
unable to do so, our earnings may be reduced. In addition, higher interest
rates, all other things equal, reduce the earnings that we derive from
transactions where we capture the difference between authorized returns and
short-term borrowings.
We
are a holding company and are dependent on cash flow from our subsidiaries,
which may not be available in the amounts and at the times we need.
A portion
of our outstanding debt was issued by our wholly-owned subsidiary, AGL Capital,
which we fully and unconditionally guarantee. Since we are a holding company and
have no operations separate from our investment in our subsidiaries, we are
dependent on cash in the form of dividends or other distributions from our
subsidiaries to meet our cash requirements. The ability of our subsidiaries to
pay dividends and make other distributions is subject to applicable state law.
Refer to Item 5, “Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder
Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities” for additional dividend
restriction information.
The
use of derivative contracts in the normal course of our business could result in
financial losses that negatively impact our results of operations.
We use
derivatives, including futures, forwards and swaps, to manage our commodity and
financial market risks. We could recognize financial losses on these contracts
as a result of volatility in the market values of the underlying commodities or
if a counterparty fails to perform under a contract. In the absence of actively
quoted market prices and pricing information from external sources, the
valuation of these financial instruments can involve management’s judgment or
use of estimates. As a result, changes in the underlying assumptions or use of
alternative valuation methods could adversely affect the value of the reported
fair value of these contracts.
As
a result of cross-default provisions in our borrowing arrangements, we may be
unable to satisfy all our outstanding obligations in the event of a default on
our part.
Our
Credit Facilities under which our debt is issued contains cross-default
provisions. Accordingly, should an event of default occur under some of our debt
agreements, we face the prospect of being in default under other of our debt
agreements, obliged in such instance to satisfy a large portion of our
outstanding indebtedness and unable to satisfy all our outstanding obligations
simultaneously.
We do not
have any unresolved comments from the SEC staff regarding our periodic or
current reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
We
consider our properties to be well maintained, in good operating condition and
suitable for their intended purpose. The following provides the location and
general character of the materially important properties that are used by our
segments.
Distribution
and transmission assets
This
property primarily includes assets used by our distribution operations and
energy investment segments for the distribution of natural gas to our customers
in our service areas, and includes approximately 45,000 miles of underground
distribution and transmission mains. These mains are located on easements or
rights-of-way which generally provide for perpetual use.
Storage assets
We have
approximately 7 Bcf of LNG storage capacity in five LNG plants located in
Georgia, New Jersey and Tennessee. In addition, we own three propane storage
facilities in Virginia and Georgia that have a combined storage capacity of
approximately 0.5 Bcf. These LNG plants and propane facilities are used by
distribution operations to supplement the natural gas supply during peak usage
periods.
We also
own a high-deliverability natural gas storage and hub facility in Louisiana.
This facility is operated by a subsidiary within our energy investments segment
and includes two salt dome gas storage caverns with approximately 10 Bcf of
total capacity and about 7 Bcf of working gas capacity. Our energy investments
segment also owns a propane storage facility in Virginia with approximately 0.3
Bcf of storage capacity. This facility supplements the natural gas supply to our
Virginia utility during peak usage periods.
Telecommunications
assets
AGL
Networks, a subsidiary within our energy investments segment, owns and operates
telecommunications conduit and fiber property in public rights-of-way that are
leased to our customers primarily in Atlanta and Phoenix. This includes over
129,000 fiber miles, a 36,000 mile increase compared to 2007. Approximately 40%
of our dark fiber in Atlanta and 22% of our dark fiber in Phoenix has been
leased.
Offices
All of
our segments own or lease office, warehouse and other facilities throughout our
operating areas. We expect additional or substitute space to be available as
needed to accommodate expansion of our operations.
The
nature of our business ordinarily results in periodic regulatory proceedings
before various state and federal authorities. In addition, we are party, as both
plaintiff and defendant, to a number of lawsuits related to our business on an
ongoing basis. Management believes that the outcome of all regulatory
proceedings and litigation in which we are currently involved will not have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of
operations. For more information regarding some of these proceedings, see
Item 7,
“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations” under the caption “Results of Operations”
and the heading
“Commitments and Contingencies” and
Note
7
to our consolidated financial
statements under the caption “Litigation” and “Review of Compliance with FERC
Regulation.”
No
matters were submitted to a vote of our security holders during the fourth
quarter ended December 31, 2008.
Set forth
below are the names, ages and positions of our executive officers along with
their business experience during the past five years. All officers serve at the
discretion of our Board of Directors. All information is as of the date of the
filing of this report.
Name,
age and position with the company
|
Periods
served
|
|
|
John W. Somerhalder II
,
Age 53
(1)
|
|
Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
October
2007 – Present
|
President
and Chief Executive Officer
|
March
2006 – October 2007
|
|
|
Ralph Cleveland,
Age
46
|
|
Executive
Vice President, Engineering and Operations
|
December
2008 – Present
|
Senior
Vice President, Engineering and Operations
|
February
2005 – December 2008
|
Vice
President, Engineering, Construction and Chief Engineer – Atlanta Gas
Light
|
January
2003 – February 2005
|
|
|
Andrew W. Evans,
Age
42
|
|
Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
May
2006 – Present
|
Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
September
2005 – May 2006
|
Vice
President and Treasurer
|
April
2002 – September 2005
|
|
|
Henry P. Linginfelter,
Age 48
|
|
Executive
Vice President, Utility Operations
|
June
2007 – Present
|
Senior
Vice President, Mid-Atlantic Operations
|
November
2004– June 2007
|
President,
Virginia Natural Gas.
|
October
2000 – November 2004
|
|
|
Kevin P. Madden,
Age 56
(2)
|
|
Executive
Vice President, External Affairs
|
November
2005 – Present
|
Executive
Vice President, Distribution and Pipeline Operations
|
April
2002 – November 2005
|
|
|
Melanie M. Platt,
Age
54
|
|
Senior
Vice President, Human Resources
|
September
2004 – Present
|
Senior
Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
|
November
2002 – September 2004
|
|
|
Douglas N. Schantz
, Age
53
|
|
President,
Sequent
|
May
2003 – Present
|
|
|
Paul R. Shlanta,
Age
51
|
|
Executive
Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance
Officer
|
September
2005 – Present
|
Senior
Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Corporate Compliance
Officer
|
September
2002 – September 2005
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Mr.
Somerhalder was executive vice president of El Paso Corporation (NYSE: EP)
from 2000 until May 2005, and he
continued
service under a professional services agreement from May 2005 until March
2006.
|
(2)
|
On
November 5, 2008, Mr. Madden announced his retirement, which is effective
March 1, 2009.
|
ITEM
5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED
STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY
SECURITIES
|
Holders
of Common Stock, Stock Price and Dividend Information
Our
common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol ATG. At
January 30, 2009, there were 9,819 record holders of our common stock. Quarterly
information concerning our high and low stock prices and cash dividends paid in
2008 and 2007 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales
price of common stock
|
|
|
Cash
dividend per common
|
|
Quarter
ended:
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
share
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March
31, 2008
|
|
$
|
39.13
|
|
|
$
|
33.45
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
June
30, 2008
|
|
|
36.50
|
|
|
|
33.46
|
|
|
|
0.42
|
|
September
30, 2008
|
|
|
35.44
|
|
|
|
30.60
|
|
|
|
0.42
|
|
December
31, 2008
|
|
|
32.07
|
|
|
|
24.02
|
|
|
|
0.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.68
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March
31, 2007
|
|
$
|
42.99
|
|
|
$
|
38.20
|
|
|
$
|
0.41
|
|
June
30, 2007
|
|
|
44.67
|
|
|
|
39.52
|
|
|
|
0.41
|
|
September
30, 2007
|
|
|
41.51
|
|
|
|
35.24
|
|
|
|
0.41
|
|
December
31, 2007
|
|
|
41.16
|
|
|
|
35.42
|
|
|
|
0.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.64
|
|
We have
historically paid dividends to common shareholders four times a year: March 1,
June 1, September 1 and December 1. We have paid 244 consecutive quarterly
dividends beginning in 1948. Our common shareholders may receive dividends when
declared at the discretion of our Board of Directors. See
Item
7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and
Results of Operations
–
Liquidity and
Capital Resources
– Cash Flow from Financing Activities – Dividends on
Common Stock.” Dividends may be paid in cash, stock or other form of payment,
and payment of future dividends will depend on our future earnings, cash flow,
financial requirements and other factors, some of which are noted below. In
certain cases, our ability to pay dividends to our common shareholders is
limited by the following:
·
|
our
ability to satisfy our obligations under certain financing agreements,
including debt-to-capitalization
covenants
|
·
|
our
ability to satisfy our obligations to any future preferred
shareholders
|
Under
Georgia law, the payment of cash dividends to the holders of our common stock is
limited to our legally available assets and subject to the prior payment of
dividends on any outstanding shares of preferred stock. Our assets are not
legally available for paying cash dividends if, after payment of the
dividend:
·
|
we
could not pay our debts as they become due in the usual course of
business, or
|
·
|
our
total assets would be less than our total liabilities plus, subject to
some exceptions, any amounts necessary to satisfy (upon dissolution) the
preferential rights of shareholders whose preferential rights are superior
to those of the shareholders receiving the
dividends
|
Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities
The
following table sets forth information regarding purchases of our common stock
by us and any affiliated purchasers during the three months ended December 31,
2008. Stock repurchases may be made in the open market or in private
transactions at times and in amounts that we deem appropriate. However, there is
no guarantee as to the exact number of additional shares that may be
repurchased, and we may terminate or limit the stock repurchase program at any
time. We will hold the repurchased shares as treasury shares.
Period
|
|
Total
number of shares purchased
(1) (2)
(3)
|
|
|
Average
price paid per share
|
|
|
Total
number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced plans or programs
(3)
|
|
|
Maximum
number of shares that may yet be purchased under the publicly announced
plans or programs
(3)
|
|
October
2008
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4,950,951
|
|
November
2008
|
|
|
4,800
|
|
|
|
29.35
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4,950,951
|
|
December
2008
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
34.81
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4,950,951
|
|
Total
fourth quarter
|
|
|
5,233
|
|
|
$
|
29.80
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
The
total number of shares purchased includes an aggregate of 433 shares
surrendered to us to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection
with the vesting of shares of restricted stock and/or the exercise of
stock options.
|
(2)
|
On
March 20, 2001, our Board of Directors approved the purchase of up to
600,000 shares of our common stock in the open market to be used for
issuances under the Officer Incentive Plan (Officer Plan). We purchased
4,800 any shares for such purposes in the fourth quarter of 2008. As of
December 31, 2008, we had purchased a total 312,367 of the 600,000 shares
authorized for purchase, leaving 287,633 shares available for purchase
under this program.
|
(3)
|
On February 3, 2006, we announced
that our Board of Directors had authorized a plan to repurchase up to a
total of 8 million shares of our common stock, excluding the shares
remaining available for purchase in connection with the Officer Plan as
described in note (2) above, over a five-year
period.
|
The
information required by this item regarding securities authorized for issuance
under our equity compensation plans will be set forth under the caption
“Executive Compensation – Equity Compensation Plan Information” in the Proxy
Statement for our 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or in a subsequent
amendment to this report. All such information will be incorporated by reference
from the Proxy Statement in Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial
Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” hereof or set forth in
such amendment to this report.
Selected
financial data about AGL Resources for the last five years is set forth in the
table below. You should read the data in the table in conjunction with the
consolidated financial statements and related notes set forth in
Item 8, “Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
.
”
Dollars
and shares in millions, except per share amounts
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
Income
statement data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
|
$
|
2,718
|
|
|
$
|
1,832
|
|
Cost
of gas
|
|
|
1,654
|
|
|
|
1,369
|
|
|
|
1,482
|
|
|
|
1,626
|
|
|
|
995
|
|
Operating margin
(1)
|
|
|
1,146
|
|
|
|
1,125
|
|
|
|
1,139
|
|
|
|
1,092
|
|
|
|
837
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation
and maintenance
|
|
|
472
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
473
|
|
|
|
477
|
|
|
|
377
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
133
|
|
|
|
99
|
|
Taxes
other than income taxes
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
668
|
|
|
|
636
|
|
|
|
651
|
|
|
|
650
|
|
|
|
505
|
|
Operating
income
|
|
|
478
|
|
|
|
489
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
|
|
442
|
|
|
|
332
|
|
Other
income (expense)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
Earnings
before interest and taxes (EBIT)
(1)
|
|
|
464
|
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
|
464
|
|
|
|
419
|
|
|
|
314
|
|
Interest
expense
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
109
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
Earnings
before income taxes
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
243
|
|
Income
taxes
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
211
|
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
|
$
|
193
|
|
|
$
|
153
|
|
Common
stock data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
average shares outstanding basic
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
77.6
|
|
|
|
77.3
|
|
|
|
66.3
|
|
Weighted
average shares outstanding diluted
|
|
|
76.6
|
|
|
|
77.4
|
|
|
|
78.0
|
|
|
|
77.8
|
|
|
|
67.0
|
|
Total
shares outstanding
(2)
|
|
|
76.9
|
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
77.7
|
|
|
|
77.8
|
|
|
|
76.7
|
|
Average
daily trading volumes
|
|
|
0.59
|
|
|
|
0.50
|
|
|
|
0.37
|
|
|
|
0.32
|
|
|
|
0.23
|
|
Earnings
per share - basic
|
|
$
|
2.85
|
|
|
$
|
2.74
|
|
|
$
|
2.73
|
|
|
$
|
2.50
|
|
|
$
|
2.30
|
|
Earnings
per share - diluted
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
|
$
|
2.48
|
|
|
$
|
2.28
|
|
Dividends
declared per share
|
|
$
|
1.68
|
|
|
$
|
1.64
|
|
|
$
|
1.48
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
Dividend
payout ratio
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
54
|
%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
Dividend
yield
(3)
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
4.4
|
%
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.5
|
%
|
Book
value per share
(4)
|
|
$
|
21.48
|
|
|
$
|
21.74
|
|
|
$
|
20.72
|
|
|
$
|
19.27
|
|
|
$
|
18.04
|
|
Price-earnings
ratio
(5)
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
Stock
price market range
|
|
$
|
24.02-$39.13
|
|
|
$
|
35.24-$44.67
|
|
|
$
|
34.40-$40.09
|
|
|
$
|
32.00-$39.32
|
|
|
$
|
26.50-$33.65
|
|
Market
value per share
(6)
|
|
$
|
31.35
|
|
|
$
|
37.64
|
|
|
$
|
38.91
|
|
|
$
|
34.81
|
|
|
$
|
33.24
|
|
Market
value
(2)
|
|
$
|
2,411
|
|
|
$
|
2,876
|
|
|
$
|
3,023
|
|
|
$
|
2,708
|
|
|
$
|
2,551
|
|
Balance sheet data
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
assets
|
|
$
|
6,710
|
|
|
$
|
6,258
|
|
|
$
|
6,123
|
|
|
$
|
6,310
|
|
|
$
|
5,637
|
|
Property,
plant and equipment – net
|
|
|
3,816
|
|
|
|
3,566
|
|
|
|
3,436
|
|
|
|
3,333
|
|
|
|
3,178
|
|
Working
capital
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
163
|
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
Total
debt
|
|
|
2,541
|
|
|
|
2,255
|
|
|
|
2,161
|
|
|
|
2,137
|
|
|
|
1,957
|
|
Common
shareholders’ equity
|
|
|
1,652
|
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
1,609
|
|
|
|
1,499
|
|
|
|
1,385
|
|
Cash
flow data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
227
|
|
|
$
|
377
|
|
|
$
|
351
|
|
|
$
|
80
|
|
|
$
|
287
|
|
Property,
plant and equipment expenditures
|
|
|
372
|
|
|
|
259
|
|
|
|
253
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
|
|
264
|
|
Net
borrowings and (payments) of short-term debt
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
(480
|
)
|
Financial ratios
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
debt
|
|
|
61
|
%
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
|
|
57
|
%
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
|
|
59
|
%
|
Common
shareholders’ equity
|
|
|
39
|
%
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
Return
on average common shareholders’ equity
|
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
|
|
12.9
|
%
|
|
|
13.6
|
%
|
|
|
13.4
|
%
|
|
|
13.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
These
are non-GAAP measurements. A reconciliation of operating margin and EBIT
to our operating income, earnings before income taxes
|
(2)
|
As
of the last day of the fiscal
period.
|
(3)
|
Dividends
declared per share divided by market value per
share.
|
(4)
|
Common
shareholders’ equity divided by total outstanding common shares as of the
last day of the fiscal period.
|
(5)
|
Market
value per share divided by basic earnings per
share.
|
(6)
|
Closing
price of common stock on the New York Stock Exchange as of the last
trading day of the fiscal period.
|
We are an
energy services holding company whose principal business is the distribution of
natural gas in six states - Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee
and Virginia. Our six utilities serve more than 2.2 million end-use customers,
making us the largest distributor of natural gas in the southeastern and
mid-Atlantic regions of the United States based on customer count. We are
involved in various related businesses, including retail natural gas marketing
to end-use customers primarily in Georgia; natural gas asset management and
related logistics activities for our own utilities as well as for nonaffiliated
companies; natural gas storage arbitrage and related activities; and the
development and operation of high-deliverability underground natural gas storage
assets. We also own and operate a small telecommunications business that
constructs and operates conduit and fiber infrastructure within select
metropolitan areas. We manage these businesses through four operating segments –
distribution operations, retail energy operations, wholesale services and energy
investments – and a nonoperating corporate segment.
The
distribution operations segment is the largest component of our business and is
subject to regulation and oversight by agencies in each of the six states we
serve. These agencies approve natural gas rates designed to provide us the
opportunity to generate revenues to recover the cost of natural gas delivered to
our customers and our fixed and variable costs such as depreciation, interest,
maintenance and overhead costs, and to earn a reasonable return for our
shareholders. With the exception of Atlanta Gas Light, our largest utility, the
earnings of our regulated utilities can be affected by customer consumption
patterns that are a function of weather conditions, price levels for natural gas
and general economic conditions that may impact their ability to pay for gas
consumed. Various mechanisms exist that limit our exposure to weather changes
within typical ranges in all of our jurisdictions. Our retail energy operations
segment, which consists of SouthStar, also is weather sensitive and uses a
variety of hedging strategies, such as weather derivative instruments and other
risk management tools, to mitigate potential weather impacts. Our Sequent
subsidiary within our wholesale services segment is temperature insensitive, but
generally has greater opportunity to capture operating margin due to price
volatility as a result of extreme weather .Our energy investments segment’s
primary activity is our natural gas storage business, which develops, acquires
and operates high-deliverability salt-dome storage assets in the Gulf Coast
region of the United States. While this business also can generate additional
revenue during times of peak market demand for natural gas storage services, the
majority of our storage services are covered under medium to long-term contracts
at a fixed market rate.
Customer growth
We continue to
see challenging economic conditions in all of the areas we serve and, as a
result, have experienced lower than expected customer growth in our distribution
operations and retail energy operations segments throughout 2008, a trend we
expect to continue through 2009.
For the
year ended December 31, 2008, our consolidated utility customer growth rate was
0.1%, compared to 0.9% for 2007. We anticipated customer growth in 2008 of about
0.5%. The lower levels of customer growth are primarily a result of much slower
growth in the residential housing markets throughout our service territories.
This trend has been offset slightly by growth in the commercial customer segment
in certain areas, primarily as a result of conversions to natural gas from other
fuel sources.
We
continue to use a variety of targeted marketing programs to attract new
customers and to retain existing ones. These programs generally emphasize
natural gas as the fuel of choice for customers and seek to expand the use of
natural gas through a variety of promotional activities.
We have
seen a 3% decline in average customer count at SouthStar for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as compared to 2007. This decline reflects some of the same
economic conditions that have affected our utility businesses; as well as a more
competitive retail pricing market for natural gas in Georgia.
Natural gas prices
Increased
energy and transportation prices are expected to impact a significantly larger
portion of consumer household incomes during the current winter heating season.
As a result, we may incur additional bad debt expense, as well as lower
operating margins, due to increased customer conservation. While these factors
could adversely impact our results of operations, we expect regulatory and
operational mechanisms in place in most of our jurisdictions will help to
mitigate some of our exposure to these factors.
The risks
of increased bad debt expense and decreased operating margins from conservation
are minimized at our largest utility, Atlanta Gas Light, as a result of its
straight-fixed variable rate structure. In addition, customers in Georgia buy
their natural gas from Marketers rather than from Atlanta Gas Light. Our credit
exposure at Atlanta Gas Light is primarily related to the provision of services
to the Marketers, but that exposure is mitigated, as we obtain security support
in an amount equal to a minimum of no less than two times a Marketer’s highest
month’s estimated bill. At our other utilities, while customer conservation
could adversely impact our operating margins, we utilize measures to collect
delinquent accounts and continue to be rigorous in monitoring and mitigating the
impact of these expenses. We do, however, expect that our bad debt expense for
the current winter heating season will be higher than the prior
year.
We worked
with regulators and state agencies in each of our jurisdictions to educate
customers about higher energy costs in advance of the winter heating season, in
particular to ensure that those qualified for the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program and other similar programs receive any needed
assistance.
SouthStar
may also be affected by the conservation and bad debt trends, but its overall
exposure is partially mitigated by the high credit quality of SouthStar’s
customer base, disciplined collection practices and the unregulated pricing
structure in Georgia.
The
rising commodity prices during the first six months of 2008, along with reduced
opportunities related to the management of storage and transportation assets
throughout 2008 negatively affected SouthStar’s operating margin. More favorable
market conditions and decreasing natural gas prices in the first six months of
2007 as compared to rising prices during the same time frame in 2008 enabled
SouthStar to recognize higher operating margins for 2007 as compared to 2008.
SouthStar’s reported results were also negatively impacted during 2008 by the
significant decrease in natural gas prices during the second half of the year as
SouthStar was required to record $24 million of LOCOM adjustments to reduce its
natural gas inventory to market value.
Due to
the rising commodity price environment and the widening of transportation basis
spreads during the first six months of 2008, Sequent recorded $70 million in
losses on the financial instruments it used to hedge its storage and
transportation positions. The natural gas market remained volatile with
significant decreases in prices and narrowing of basis spreads during the second
half of 2008. Consequently Sequent recognized gains on hedging instruments of
$52 million for 2008. This is a $35 million net increase compared to 2007. In
addition to the increase in hedge gains, Sequent’s commercial activity improved
by $25 million for 2008 over 2007, due to more favorable business opportunities
presented by the greater volatility in the marketplace. In addition, the
decrease in forward prices caused Sequent to be subject to a LOCOM adjustment on
its natural gas inventory. The increase in the impact of the adjustment, net of
estimated hedging recoveries, was $15 million for 2008 from the prior year.
These changes resulted in Sequent reporting operating margin that was $45
million higher for 2008, as compared to 2007.
Revenues
We generate nearly all
our operating revenues through the sale, distribution and storage of natural
gas. We include in our consolidated revenues an estimate of revenues from
natural gas distributed, but not yet billed, to residential and commercial
customers from the latest meter reading date to the end of the reporting period.
The following table provides more information regarding the components of our
operating revenues.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Residential
|
|
$
|
1,194
|
|
|
$
|
1,143
|
|
|
$
|
1,127
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
500
|
|
|
|
460
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
482
|
|
|
|
401
|
|
|
|
434
|
|
Industrial
|
|
|
280
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
Other
|
|
|
344
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
290
|
|
Total
operating revenues
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
Operating margin
and EBIT
We evaluate the performance of our operating segments using the
measures of operating margin and EBIT. We believe operating margin is a better
indicator than operating revenues for the contribution resulting from customer
growth in our distribution operations segment since the cost of gas can vary
significantly and is generally billed directly to our customers. We also
consider operating margin to be a better indicator in our retail energy
operations, wholesale services and energy investments segments since it is a
direct measure of operating margin before overhead costs. We believe EBIT is a
useful measurement of our operating segments’ performance because it provides
information that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of our businesses
from an operational perspective, exclusive of the costs to finance those
activities and exclusive of income taxes, neither of which is directly relevant
to the efficiency of those operations.
Our
operating margin and EBIT are not measures that are considered to be calculated
in accordance with GAAP. You should not consider operating margin or EBIT an
alternative to, or a more meaningful indicator of, our operating performance
than operating income or net income as determined in accordance with GAAP. In
addition, our operating margin and EBIT measures may not be comparable to
similarly titled measures of other companies. The table below sets forth a
reconciliation of our operating margin and EBIT to our operating income,
earnings before income taxes and net income, together with other consolidated
financial information for the last three years.
In
millions, except per share amounts
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
Cost
of gas
|
|
|
1,654
|
|
|
|
1,369
|
|
|
|
1,482
|
|
Operating
margin
|
|
|
1,146
|
|
|
|
1,125
|
|
|
|
1,139
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation
and maintenance
|
|
|
472
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
473
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
Taxes
other than income
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
668
|
|
|
|
636
|
|
|
|
651
|
|
Operating
income
|
|
|
478
|
|
|
|
489
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
Other
income (expense)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
EBIT
|
|
|
464
|
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
|
464
|
|
Interest
expense
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
Earnings
before income taxes
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
Income
taxes
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
211
|
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
Earnings
per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
2.85
|
|
|
$
|
2.74
|
|
|
$
|
2.73
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
Weighted
average number of common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
77.6
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
76.6
|
|
|
|
77.4
|
|
|
|
78.0
|
|
In 2008
our net income increased by $6 million from the prior year primarily due to
increased EBIT from wholesale services and energy investments largely due to
higher operating margin. This was offset by decreased EBIT at distribution
operations and retail energy operations due to lower operating margins as
compared to 2007. Additionally, distribution operations’ EBIT contribution
decreased due to higher operating expenses as compared to 2007. Our basic
earnings per share increased by $0.11 and our diluted earnings per share
increased by $0.12, primarily due to our increased earnings and the reduction in
the average number of shares outstanding as a result of purchases made under our
share repurchase program during 2007.
In 2007
our net income decreased by $1 million from 2006 primarily due to decreased EBIT
from wholesale services largely due to lower operating margin. This was offset
by increased EBIT at distribution operations, retail energy operations and
energy investments due to higher operating margins as compared to 2006.
Additionally, distribution operations’ EBIT contribution increased due to lower
operating expenses as compared to 2006. Our basic earnings per share increased
by $0.01, primarily due to the reduction in the average number of shares
outstanding as a result of our share repurchase program. Our diluted earnings
per share were unchanged from 2006.
Operating metrics
Selected weather, customer and volume metrics for 2008, 2007 and 2006,
which we consider to be some of the key performance indicators for our operating
segments, are presented in the following tables. We measure the effects of
weather on our business through heating degree days. Generally, increased
heating degree days result in greater demand for gas on our distribution
systems. However, extended and unusually mild weather during the heating season
can have a significant negative impact on demand for natural gas. Our marketing
and customer retention initiatives are measured by our customer metrics which
can be impacted by natural gas prices, economic conditions and competition from
alternative fuels. Volume metrics for distribution operations and retail energy
operations present the effects of weather and our customers’ demand for natural
gas. Wholesale services’ daily physical sales represent the daily average
natural gas volumes sold to its customers.
Weather
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating degree days (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
vs.
|
|
|
2007
vs.
|
|
|
2008
vs.
|
|
|
2007
vs.
|
|
|
2006
vs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
ended December 31,
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
normal
|
|
|
normal
|
|
|
normal
|
|
|
|
|
Normal
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
496
|
|
|
|
416
|
|
|
|
326
|
|
|
|
468
|
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
(30
|
)%
|
|
|
(16
|
)%
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
|
|
(6
|
)%
|
|
Georgia
|
|
|
2,608
|
|
|
|
2,746
|
|
|
|
2,366
|
|
|
|
2,455
|
|
|
|
16
|
%
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
(9
|
)%
|
|
|
(6
|
)%
|
|
Maryland
|
|
|
4,705
|
|
|
|
4,521
|
|
|
|
4,621
|
|
|
|
4,205
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)%
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
|
|
(2
|
)%
|
|
|
(11
|
)%
|
|
New
Jersey
|
|
|
4,654
|
|
|
|
4,647
|
|
|
|
4,777
|
|
|
|
4,074
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
(12
|
)%
|
|
Tennessee
|
|
|
2,991
|
|
|
|
3,179
|
|
|
|
2,722
|
|
|
|
2,892
|
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
(6
|
)%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
(9
|
)%
|
|
|
(3
|
)%
|
|
Virginia
|
|
|
3,151
|
|
|
|
3,031
|
|
|
|
3,077
|
|
|
|
2,870
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
|
|
(2
|
)%
|
|
|
(9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
vs.
|
|
|
2007
vs.
|
|
|
2008
vs.
|
|
|
2007
vs.
|
|
|
2006
vs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
ended December 31,
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
normal
|
|
|
normal
|
|
|
normal
|
|
|
|
|
Normal
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
colder
(warmer)
|
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
160
|
|
|
|
201
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
|
347
|
%
|
|
|
(59
|
)%
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
|
|
(72
|
)%
|
|
|
(31
|
)%
|
|
Georgia
|
|
|
1,021
|
|
|
|
1,092
|
|
|
|
877
|
|
|
|
955
|
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
|
|
(8
|
)%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
(14
|
)%
|
|
|
(6
|
)%
|
|
Maryland
|
|
|
1,673
|
|
|
|
1,693
|
|
|
|
1,558
|
|
|
|
1,493
|
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
(7
|
)%
|
|
|
(11
|
)%
|
|
New
Jersey
|
|
|
1,623
|
|
|
|
1,729
|
|
|
|
1,605
|
|
|
|
1,372
|
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
(1
|
)%
|
|
|
(15
|
)%
|
|
Tennessee
|
|
|
1,184
|
|
|
|
1,291
|
|
|
|
969
|
|
|
|
1,193
|
|
|
|
33
|
%
|
|
|
(19
|
)%
|
|
|
9
|
%
|
|
|
(18
|
)%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
Virginia
|
|
|
1,096
|
|
|
|
1,151
|
|
|
|
965
|
|
|
|
993
|
|
|
|
19
|
%
|
|
|
(3
|
)%
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
(12
|
)%
|
|
|
(9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
Obtained
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Climatic Data Center. Normal represents the ten-year averages from January
1999 to December
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
|
|
Year
ended December 31,
|
|
|
2008
vs. 2007
|
|
|
2007
vs. 2006
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
%
change
|
|
|
%
change
|
|
Distribution
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
end-use customers
(in
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlanta
Gas Light
|
|
|
1,557
|
|
|
|
1,559
|
|
|
|
1,546
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
Chattanooga
Gas
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Elizabethtown
Gas
|
|
|
273
|
|
|
|
272
|
|
|
|
269
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
Elkton
Gas
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Florida
City Gas
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Virginia
Natural Gas
|
|
|
271
|
|
|
|
269
|
|
|
|
264
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,273
|
|
|
|
2,271
|
|
|
|
2,250
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
Operation
and maintenance expenses per customer
|
|
$
|
145
|
|
|
$
|
145
|
|
|
$
|
156
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)%
|
EBIT
per customer
|
|
$
|
145
|
|
|
$
|
149
|
|
|
$
|
138
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail
Energy Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
customers
(in
thousands)
|
|
|
526
|
|
|
|
540
|
|
|
|
533
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Market
share in Georgia
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
(3
|
)%
|
|
|
-
|
|
Volumes
In
billion cubic feet (Bcf)
|
|
Year
ended December 31,
|
|
|
2008
vs. 2007
|
|
|
2007
vs. 2006
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
%
change
|
|
|
%
change
|
|
Distribution
Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firm
|
|
|
219
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Interruptible
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Total
|
|
|
323
|
|
|
|
319
|
|
|
|
316
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail
Energy Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia
firm
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
|
|
5
|
%
|
Ohio
and Florida
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
400
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale
Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily
physical sales (Bcf / day)
|
|
|
2.60
|
|
|
|
2.35
|
|
|
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
11
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
Segment
information
Operating revenues, operating margin, operating expenses and
EBIT information for each of our segments are contained in the following tables
for the last three years.
In
millions
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
|
Operating
margin (1)
|
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
EBIT
(1)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
$
|
1,768
|
|
|
$
|
818
|
|
|
$
|
493
|
|
|
$
|
329
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
987
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
170
|
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Corporate
(2)
|
|
|
(180
|
)
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Consolidated
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
|
$
|
1,146
|
|
|
$
|
668
|
|
|
$
|
464
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
$
|
1,665
|
|
|
$
|
820
|
|
|
$
|
485
|
|
|
$
|
338
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
892
|
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
Corporate
(2)
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
Consolidated
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
|
$
|
1,125
|
|
|
$
|
636
|
|
|
$
|
463
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
$
|
1,624
|
|
|
$
|
807
|
|
|
$
|
499
|
|
|
$
|
310
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
930
|
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
|
139
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Corporate
(2)
|
|
|
(156
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
Consolidated
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
|
$
|
1,139
|
|
|
$
|
651
|
|
|
$
|
464
|
|
|
(1)
These are non-GAAP measurements. A reconciliation of operating margin,
earnings before income taxes and EBIT to our operating income
|
|
(2)
Includes intercompany eliminations
|
Operating margin
Our operating margin in 2008 increased by $21 million or 2% compared to
2007 primarily due to higher operating margins at wholesale services and energy
investments segments, partially offset by decreased operating margin at our
retail energy operations segment. In 2007 our operating margin decreased $14
million or 1% compared to 2006 primarily due to lower operating margin at our
wholesale services segment.
Distribution operations
The
2008 operating margin for distribution operations decreased by $2 million,
compared to 2007, primarily due to lower customer growth and use of natural gas,
offset by an increase in revenues from Atlanta Gas Light’s pipeline replacement
program (PRP).
Distribution
operations’ 2007 operating margin increased $13 million or 2% compared to 2006
primarily due to an increase in customers and slightly overall higher customer
use of natural gas. The following table indicates the significant changes in
distribution operations’ operating margin for 2008 and 2007.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
Operating
margin for prior year
|
|
$
|
820
|
|
|
$
|
807
|
|
(Decreased)
increased customer growth and use of natural gas
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
Higher
PRP revenues at Atlanta Gas Light
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Base
rate increase at Chattanooga Gas
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
Operating
margin for year
|
|
$
|
818
|
|
|
$
|
820
|
|
Retail energy operations
The
2008 operating margin for retail energy operations decreased $39 million or 21%
compared to 2007. This was primarily due to a reduction of customers in Georgia,
lower contributions from the optimization and management of storage and
transportation assets and a $24 million LOCOM adjustment. Retail energy
operations did not record a similar LOCOM adjustment in 2007. While 2008 was 16%
colder than 2007, and 2007 was 4% warmer than 2006, retail energy operations use
of weather derivatives largely offset the effects of weather in operating
margin.
Retail
energy operations’ 2007 operating margin increased $32 million or 21% compared
to 2006. This was primarily due to an increase in customer use of natural gas in
Georgia and the combination of retail price spreads and contributions from the
optimization of storage and transportation assets and commodity risk management
activities. The following table indicates the significant changes in retail
energy operations’ operating margin for 2008 and 2007.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
Operating
margin for prior year
|
|
$
|
188
|
|
|
$
|
156
|
|
Inventory
LOCOM
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
6
|
|
(Decreased)
increased contributions from management and optimization of storage and
transportation assets, and from retail price spreads
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
12
|
|
(Decreased)
increased average number of customers
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
Pricing
settlement with the Georgia Commission
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Increased
operating margins in Ohio and Florida
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Increased
customer use of natural gas
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Increased
late payment fees
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Operating
margin for year
|
|
$
|
149
|
|
|
$
|
188
|
|
Wholesale services
The 2008
operating margin for wholesale services increased $45 million or 58% compared to
2007. This increase was due to a $35 million increase in reported hedge gains
and a $25 million increase in commercial activity, due in part to increased
inventory storage and transportation spreads and higher volatility in the
marketplace. These increases were partially offset by a $36 million increase in
the required LOCOM adjustments to natural gas inventories for the year ended
December 31, 2008, net of $21 million in estimated hedging
recoveries.
Wholesale
services’ 2007 operating margin decreased $62 million or 45% compared to 2006.
This decrease was due to a reduction in hedge gains and commercial activity, due
in part to reduced inventory storage spreads and lower volatility in the
marketplace.
The
following table indicates the significant changes in wholesale services’
operating margin for 2008 and 2007.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
Operating
margin for prior year
|
|
$
|
77
|
|
|
$
|
139
|
|
Increased
(decreased) commercial activity
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
Increased
(decreased) hedge gains
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
(36
|
)
|
Inventory
LOCOM, net of hedging recoveries
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
20
|
|
Operating
margin for year
|
|
$
|
122
|
|
|
$
|
77
|
|
For more
information on Sequent’s expected operating revenues from its storage inventory
in 2009 and discussion of increased commercial activity in 2008 compared to
2007, see the description of the wholesale services business in
Item 1 “Business”
beginning on page 10.
Energy investments
The 2008
operating margin for energy investments increased $10 million or 25% compared to
2007. Its 2007 operating margin increased $4 million or 11% from the prior year,
primarily due to a larger customer base and customer construction projects at
AGL Networks and increased revenues at Jefferson Island as a result of increased
interruptible margin opportunities. The following table indicates the
significant changes in energy investments’ operating margin for 2008 and
2007.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
Operating
margin for prior year
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
|
$
|
36
|
|
Increased
customers and expansion projects at AGL Networks
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Increased
revenues at Jefferson Island
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Operating
margin for year
|
|
$
|
50
|
|
|
$
|
40
|
|
Operating
expenses
Our operating expenses in 2008 increased $32 million or 5% from
2007, which decreased $15 million or 2% from 2006. The following table indicates
the significant changes in our operating expenses.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Operating
expenses for prior year
|
|
$
|
636
|
|
|
$
|
651
|
|
Increased
(decreased) incentive compensation costs at distribution
operations
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
Increased
(decreased) incentive compensation costs at wholesale services due to
higher (lower) operating margin
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
Increased
(decreased) bad debt expense at retail energy operations
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Increased
incentive compensation costs at retail energy operations due to growth and
improved operations
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Increased
bad debt expense at distribution operations
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Increased
depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Increased
payroll and other operating costs at wholesale services due to continued
expansion
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
(Decreased)
increased costs at retail energy operations from customer care, marketing
and payroll
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
5
|
|
Increased
(decreased) costs at energy investments due to expansion costs at AGL
Networks, business development costs and depreciation and legal expenses
at Jefferson Island
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Other,
net primarily at distribution operations due to pension, outside services
and reduction in marketing and customer service expenses
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Operating
expenses for year
|
|
$
|
668
|
|
|
$
|
636
|
|
Other
income
(expenses)
Our 2008 other income (expenses) increased by $2 million compared to 2007
primarily from increased capitalization for regulatory allowances for funds used
during distribution operations’ construction projects. Our 2007 other income
increased by $5 million as compared to 2006 primarily due to lower charitable
contributions at distribution operations and retail energy
operations.
Interest
expense
The decreased interest expense of $10 million or 8% in 2008 as
compared to 2007 was due primarily to lower short-term interest rates partially
offset by higher average debt outstanding and a $3 million premium paid for the
early redemption of the $75 million notes payable to AGL Capital Trust I, which
was recorded as interest expense in 2007.
The
increased interest expense of $2 million or 2% in 2007 compared to 2006 was
primarily due to higher short-term interest rates and the $3 million premium
previously discussed. The following table provides additional detail on interest
expense for the last three years and the primary items that affect
year-over-year change.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Interest
expense
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
$
|
125
|
|
|
$
|
123
|
|
Average
debt outstanding
(1)
|
|
$
|
2,156
|
|
|
$
|
1,967
|
|
|
$
|
2,023
|
|
Average
rate
(2)
|
|
|
5.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
(1)
|
Daily
average of all outstanding debt.
|
(2)
|
Excluding
$3 million premium paid for early redemption of debt, average rate in 2007
would have been 6.2%.
|
Income tax
expense
The increase in income tax expense of $5 million or 4% in 2008
compared to 2007 was primarily due to higher consolidated earnings and a
slightly higher effective tax rate of 37.8% in 2008 compared to an effective tax
rate of 37.6% in 2007.
The
decrease in income tax expense of $2 million or 2% in 2007 compared to 2006 was
primarily due to lower consolidated earnings and a slightly lower effective tax
rate of 37.6% in 2007 compared to an effective tax rate of 37.8% in 2006. For
more information on our income taxes, including a reconciliation between the
statutory federal income tax rate and the effective rate, see
Note 8
.
Overview
Our primary sources of liquidity are cash provided by operating
activities, short-term borrowings under our commercial paper program (which is
supported by our Credit Facilities), borrowings from our Credit Facilities and
borrowings under our Sequent and SouthStar lines of credit. Additionally from
time to time, we raise funds from the public debt and equity capital markets
through our existing shelf registration statement to fund our liquidity and
capital resource needs.
Our
issuance of various securities, including long-term and short-term debt, is
subject to customary approval or authorization by state and federal regulatory
bodies including state public service commissions and the SEC. Furthermore,
a substantial portion of our consolidated assets, earnings and cash flow is
derived from the operation of our regulated utility subsidiaries, whose legal
authority to pay dividends or make other distributions to us is subject to
regulation.
We
believe the amounts available to us under our Credit Facilities and the issuance
of debt and equity securities together with cash provided by operating
activities will continue to allow us to meet our needs for working capital,
pension contributions, construction expenditures, anticipated debt redemptions,
interest payments on debt obligations, dividend payments, common share
repurchases and other cash needs through the next several years. Nevertheless,
our ability to satisfy our working capital requirements and debt service
obligations, or fund planned capital expenditures, will substantially depend
upon our future operating performance (which will be affected by prevailing
economic conditions), and financial, business and other factors, some of which
are beyond our control.
We will
continue to evaluate our need to increase available liquidity based on our view
of working capital requirements, including the impact of changes in natural gas
prices, liquidity requirements established by rating agencies and other factors.
See
Item 1A
, “Risk Factors,” for additional
information on items that could impact our liquidity and capital resource
requirements. The following table provides a summary of our operating, investing
and financing activities for the last three years.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Net
cash provided by (used in):
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
activities
|
|
$
|
227
|
|
|
$
|
377
|
|
|
$
|
351
|
|
Investing
activities
|
|
|
(372
|
)
|
|
|
(253
|
)
|
|
|
(248
|
)
|
Financing
activities
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
(122
|
)
|
|
|
(118
|
)
|
Net
(decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
(15
|
)
|
Cash Flow from
Operating Activities
We prepare our statement of cash flows using the
indirect method. Under this method, we reconcile net income to cash flows from
operating activities by adjusting net income for those items that impact net
income but may not result in actual cash receipts or payments during the period.
These reconciling items include depreciation and amortization, changes in risk
management assets and liabilities, undistributed earnings from equity
investments, deferred income taxes and changes in the consolidated balance sheet
for working capital from the beginning to the end of the period.
Our
operations are seasonal in nature, with the business depending to a great extent
on the first and fourth quarters of each year. As a result of this seasonality,
our natural gas inventories are usually at their highest levels in November each
year, and largely are drawn down in the heating season, providing a source of
cash as this asset is used to satisfy winter sales demand. The establishment and
price fluctuations of our natural gas inventories, which meet customer demand
during the winter heating season, can cause significant variations in our cash
flow from operations from period to period and are reflected in changes to our
working capital.
Year-over-year
changes in our operating cash flows are attributable primarily to working
capital changes within our distribution operations, retail energy operations and
wholesale services segments resulting from the impact of weather, the price of
natural gas, the timing of customer collections, payments for natural gas
purchases and deferred gas cost recoveries as our business has grown and prices
for natural gas have increased. The increase in natural gas prices directly
impacts the cost of gas stored in inventory.
2008 compared to 2007
In
2008, our net cash flow provided from operating activities was $227 million, a
decrease of $150 million or 40% from 2007. This decrease was primarily a result
of increased working capital requirements of $104 million, principally driven by
increased cash used for inventory purchases which were impacted by rising
natural gas prices during the first half of 2008.
2007 compared to 2006
In
2007, our net cash flow provided from operating activities was $377 million, an
increase of $23 million or 6% from 2006. The increase was due to higher realized
gains on our energy marketing and risk management assets and liabilities and
lower cash requirements for our natural gas inventories due to price and
inventory volume fluctuations. This was offset by increased cash payments for
income taxes due to realized gains on our energy marketing and risk management
activities and higher working capital requirements.
Cash Flow from
Investing Activities
Our net cash used in investing activities consisted
primarily of PP&E expenditures. The majority of our PP&E expenditures
are within our distribution operations segment, which includes our investments
in new construction and infrastructure improvements.
Our
estimated PP&E expenditures of approximately $453 million in 2009 and actual
expenditures of $372 million in 2008, $259 million in 2007 and $253 million in
2006 are shown within the following categories and are presented in the chart
below.
·
|
Base business
– new
construction and infrastructure improvements at our distribution
operations segment
|
·
|
Natural gas storage
–
salt-dome cavern expansions at Golden Triangle Storage and Jefferson
Island
|
·
|
Hampton Roads
– Virginia
Natural Gas’ pipeline project, which will connect its northern and
southern systems
|
·
|
PRP
– Atlanta Gas
Light’s program to replace all bare steel and cast iron pipe in its
Georgia system
|
·
|
Magnolia project
–pipelines acquired from Southern Natural Gas connecting our Georgia
service territory to the Elba Island LNG
facility
|
·
|
Other
– primarily
includes information technology, building and leasehold improvements and
AGL Networks’ telecommunication
expenditures
|
In 2008,
our PP&E expenditures were $113 million or 44% higher than in 2007. This was
primarily due to an increase in our natural gas storage project expenditures of
$48 million as we began construction of our Golden Triangle Storage facility,
$43 million in increased expenditures for the Hampton Roads project and
increased expenditures of $29 million for PRP as we replaced larger-diameter
pipe in more densely populated areas. This was offset by decreased expenditures
of $7 million on our base business and other projects.
In 2007,
our PP&E expenditures were $6 million or 2% higher than in 2006. This was
primarily due to an increase in PRP expenditures of $10 million as we replaced
larger-diameter pipe in more densely populated areas and $5 million in
expenditures for the Hampton Roads project. This was offset by decreased
expenditures of $4 million on our storage projects and $5 million on our base
business and other projects.
Our
estimated expenditures for 2009 include discretionary spending for capital
projects principally within the base business and natural gas storage
categories. We continually evaluate whether to proceed with these projects,
reviewing them in relation to factors including our authorized returns on rate
base, other returns on invested capital for projects of a similar nature,
capital structure and credit ratings, among others. We will make adjustments to
these discretionary expenditures as necessary based upon these
factors.
In
October 2008, the New Jersey Governor presented a Comprehensive Economic
Stimulus Plan for New Jersey that is intended to enhance the State’s business
climate and support short-term employment growth and long-term economic
prospects. Recognizing that the State’s natural gas utilities play a crucial
role in both improving the State’s economic condition and encouraging energy
efficiency, the Governor’s stimulus package included provisions for energy
companies to invest in programs for utility customers that will encourage energy
efficiency, generate jobs and strengthen the local economy. In accordance with
the Governor’s plan, in January 2009 Elizabethtown Gas filed a two-year utility
infrastructure enhancement program and cost recovery mechanism that, if
approved, would require an additional $20 million in capital expenditures in
2009.
Cash Flow from
Financing Activities
Our capitalization and financing strategy is
intended to ensure that we are properly capitalized with the appropriate mix of
equity and debt securities. This strategy includes active management of the
percentage of total debt relative to total capitalization, appropriate mix of
debt with fixed to floating interest rates (our variable debt target is 20% to
45% of total debt), as well as the term and interest rate profile of our debt
securities.
As of
December 31, 2008, our variable-rate debt was $1,026 million or 40% of our total
debt, compared to $840 million or 37% as of December 31, 2007. This increase was
principally due to borrowings under our Credit Facilities and commercial paper
borrowings. As of December 31, 2008, our Credit Facilities and commercial paper
borrowings were $773 million or 37% higher than the same time last year,
primarily a result of higher working capital requirements, driven by higher
natural gas prices during the inventory injection season and increased PP&E
expenditures of $113 million. For more information on our debt, see
Note 6.
Credit Ratings
We strive to
maintain or improve our credit ratings on our debt to manage our existing
financing cost and enhance our ability to raise additional capital on favorable
terms. Factors we consider important in assessing our credit ratings include our
balance sheet leverage, capital spending, earnings, cash flow generation,
available liquidity and overall business risks. We do not have any trigger
events in our debt instruments that are tied to changes in our specified credit
ratings or our stock price and have not entered into any agreements that would
require us to issue equity based on credit ratings or other trigger events. The
following table summarizes our credit ratings as of December 31,
2008.
|
|
S&P
|
|
|
Moody’s
|
|
|
Fitch
|
|
Corporate
rating
|
|
A-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial
paper
|
|
A-2
|
|
|
P-2
|
|
|
F-2
|
|
Senior
unsecured
|
|
BBB+
|
|
|
Baa1
|
|
|
A-
|
|
Ratings
outlook
|
|
Stable
|
|
|
Stable
|
|
|
Stable
|
|
A credit
rating is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities. The highest
investment grade credit rating for S&P is AAA, Moody’s is Aaa and Fitch is
AAA. Our credit ratings may be subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by
the assigning rating organization, and each rating should be evaluated
independently of any other rating. We cannot ensure that a rating will remain in
effect for any given period of time or that a rating will not be lowered or
withdrawn entirely by a rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances so
warrant. If the rating agencies downgrade our ratings, particularly below
investment grade, it may significantly limit our access to the commercial paper
market and our borrowing costs would increase. In addition, we would likely be
required to pay a higher interest rate in future financings, and our potential
pool of investors and funding sources would decrease.
Default Events
Our debt
instruments and other financial obligations include provisions that, if not
complied with, could require early payment, additional collateral support or
similar actions. Our most important default events include maintaining covenants
with respect to a maximum leverage ratio, insolvency events, nonpayment of
scheduled principal or interest payments, and acceleration of other financial
obligations and change of control provisions.
Our
Credit Facilities’ financial covenants require us to maintain a ratio of total
debt to total capitalization of no greater than 70%; however, our goal is to
maintain this ratio at levels between 50% and 60%. Our ratio of total debt to
total capitalization calculation contained in our debt covenant includes
minority interest, standby letters of credit, surety bonds and the exclusion of
other comprehensive income pension adjustments. Our debt-to-equity calculation,
as defined by our Credit Facilities, was 59% at December 31, 2008 and 58% at
December 31, 2007. These amounts are within our required and targeted ranges.
The components of our capital structure, as calculated from our consolidated
balance sheets, as of the dates indicated, are provided in the following
table.
In
millions
|
|
December
31, 2008
|
|
|
December
31, 2007
|
|
|
|
Short-term
debt
|
|
$
|
866
|
|
|
|
21
|
%
|
|
$
|
580
|
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Long-term
debt
|
|
|
1,675
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
1,675
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
Total
debt
|
|
|
2,541
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
2,255
|
|
|
|
58
|
|
Common
shareholders’ equity
|
|
|
1,652
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
Total
capitalization
|
|
$
|
4,193
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
3,916
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
We are
currently in compliance with all existing debt provisions and covenants. We
believe that accomplishing these capitalization objectives and maintaining
sufficient cash flow are necessary to maintain our investment-grade credit
ratings and to allow us access to capital at reasonable costs.
Short-term Debt
Our short-term debt is
composed of borrowings and payments of commercial paper, lines of credit and
payments of the current portion of our capital leases. Our short-term debt
financing generally increases between June and December because our payments for
natural gas and pipeline capacity are generally made to suppliers prior to the
collection of accounts receivable from our customers. We typically reduce
short-term debt balances in the spring because a significant portion of our
current assets are converted into cash at the end of the winter heating
season.
In June
2008 we extended Sequent’s $25 million unsecured line of credit bearing interest
at the federal funds rate plus 0.75% through June 2009. In September 2008
Sequent extended its $20 million second line of credit that bears interest at
the LIBOR rate plus 1.0% to September 2009. In December 2008 the terms of this
line of credit were decreased to $5 million bearing interest at the LIBOR rate
plus 3.0%. Sequent’s lines of credit are used solely for the posting of margin
deposits for NYMEX transactions and are unconditionally guaranteed by us
.
Under the
terms of our Credit Facilities, which expires in August 2011, the aggregate
principal amount available is $1 billion and we can request an option to
increase the aggregate principal amount available for borrowing to $1.25 billion
on not more than three occasions during each calendar year.
In
September 2008, we completed a $140 million supplemental credit facility that
expires in September 2009, which will provide additional liquidity for working
capital and capital expenditure needs. This $140 million credit facility allows
for the option to request an increase in the borrowing capacity to $150 million
and supplements our existing $1 billion Credit Facility which expires in August
2011.
More
information on our short-term debt as of December 31, 2008, which we consider
one of our primary sources of liquidity, is presented in the following
table:
In
millions
|
|
Capacity
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Credit
Facilities
|
|
$
|
1,140
|
|
|
$
|
773
|
|
SouthStar
line of credit
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
Sequent
lines of credit
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,245
|
|
|
$
|
865
|
|
We
normally access the commercial paper markets to finance our working capital
needs. However, during the third and fourth quarters of 2008, adverse
developments in the global financial and credit markets, including the failure
or merger between several large financial institutions, have made it more
difficult for us to access the commercial paper market at reasonable rates. As a
result, at times we relied upon our Credit Facilities for our liquidity and
capital resource needs. At December 31, 2007, we had no outstanding credit line
borrowings under the Credit Facilities and $566 million of commercial paper
issuances.
Long-term Debt
Our long-term debt
matures more than one year from the balance sheet date and consists of
medium-term notes, senior notes, gas facility revenue bonds, and capital leases.
The following represents our long-term debt activity over the last three
years.
Gas
Facility Revenue Bonds
·
|
In
June 2008, we refinanced $122 million of our gas facility revenue bonds,
$47 million due October 2022, $20 million due October 2024 and $55 million
due June 2032. There was no change to the maturity dates of these bonds.
The $55 million bond has an interest rate that resets daily and the $47
million and $20 million bonds had a 35-day auction period where the
interest rate adjusted every 35 days. Both the bonds with principal
amounts of $47 million and $55 million now have interest rates that reset
daily and the bond with a principal amount of $20 million has an interest
rate that resets weekly. The interest rates at December 31, 2008, ranged
from 0.7% to 1.10%.
|
·
|
In
September 2008, we refinanced $39 million of our gas facility revenue
bonds due June 2026.The bonds had a 35-day auction period where the
interest rate adjusted every 35 days now they have interest rates that
reset daily. The maturity date of these bonds remains June 2026. The
interest rate at December 31, 2008, was
1.1%.
|
Senior
notes
·
|
In
December 2007 and June 2006, AGL Capital issued $125 million and $175
million of 6.375% senior notes. The proceeds of the note issuances, equal
to approximately $296 million, were used to pay down short-term
indebtedness incurred under our commercial paper
program.
|
Notes
payable to Trusts
·
|
In
July 2007, we used the proceeds from the sale of commercial paper to pay
AGL Capital Trust I the $75 million principal amount of 8.17% junior
subordinated debentures plus a $3 million premium for early redemption of
the junior subordinated debentures, and to pay a $2 million note
representing our common securities interest in AGL Capital Trust
I.
|
·
|
In
May 2006, we used the proceeds from the sale of commercial paper to pay
AGL Capital Trust II the $150 million of junior subordinated debentures
and to pay a $5 million note representing our common securities interest
in AGL Capital Trust II.
|
Medium-term
notes
·
|
In
January 2007, we used proceeds from the sale of commercial paper to redeem
$11 million of 7% medium-term notes previously scheduled to mature in
January 2015.
|
Minority Interest
A
cash distribution of $30 million in 2008, $23 million in 2007 and $22 million in
2006 for SouthStar’s dividend distributions to Piedmont were recorded in our
consolidated statement of cash flows as a financing activity.
Dividends on Common
Stock
Our
common stock dividend payments were $124 million in 2008, a $1 million increase
from 2007. While our dividends per common share increased 2% in 2008 from $1.64
to $1.68 per common share; this was offset by fewer outstanding shares as a
result of our share repurchase plans. The $12 million or 11% increase in common
stock dividend payments in 2007 compared to 2006, resulted from our 11% increase
in our common stock dividends per share from $1.48 to $1.64 per common
share.
In 2008,
our dividend payout ratio was 59%, which is consistent with our payout ratio of
60% in 2007. We expect that our dividend payout ratio will remain consistent
with the dividend payout ratios of our peer companies, which is currently an
average of 58% with an average dividend yield of 4.3%. Our diluted earnings per
share and declared common stock dividends per share along with our dividend
payout ratio for the last three years are presented in the following
chart.
For
information about restrictions on our ability to pay dividends on our common
stock, see
Note 5
“Common Shareholders’
Equity.”
Treasury Shares
In March 2001
our Board of Directors approved the purchase of up to 600,000 shares of our
common stock to be used for issuances under the Officer Incentive Plan. During
2008, we purchased 15,133 shares. As of December 31, 2008, we had purchased a
total 312,367 shares, leaving 287,633 shares available for
purchase.
In
February 2006, our Board of Directors authorized a plan to purchase up to 8
million shares of our outstanding common stock over a five-year period. These
purchases are intended principally to offset share issuances under our employee
and non-employee director incentive compensation plans and our dividend
reinvestment and stock purchase plans. Stock purchases under this program may be
made in the open market or in private transactions at times and in amounts that
we deem appropriate. There is no guarantee as to the exact number of shares that
we will purchase, and we can terminate or limit the program at any
time.
For the
year ended December 31, 2008, we did not purchase shares of our common stock.
During the same period in 2007, we purchased approximately 2 million shares of
our common stock at a weighted average cost of $39.56 per share and an aggregate
cost of $80 million. We hold the purchased shares as treasury shares. For more
information on our share repurchases see
Item 5
“Market
for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities.”
Shelf Registration
In August
2007, we filed a new shelf registration with the SEC. The debt securities and
related guarantees will be issued by AGL Capital under an indenture dated as of
February 20, 2001, as supplemented and modified, as necessary, among AGL
Capital, AGL Resources and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as trustee.
The indenture provides for the issuance from time to time of debt securities in
an unlimited dollar amount and an unlimited number of series subject to our
Credit Facilities’ financial covenants related to total debt to total
capitalization. The debt securities will be guaranteed by AGL
Resources.
Contractual
Obligations and Commitments
We have incurred
various contractual obligations and financial commitments in the normal course
of our operating and financing activities that are reasonably likely to have a
material effect on liquidity or the availability of requirements for capital
resources. Contractual obligations include future cash payments required under
existing contractual arrangements, such as debt and lease agreements. These
obligations may result from both general financing activities and from
commercial arrangements that are directly supported by related revenue-producing
activities. Contingent financial commitments represent obligations that become
payable only if certain predefined events occur, such as financial guarantees,
and include the nature of the guarantee and the maximum potential amount of
future payments that could be required of us as the guarantor. As we do for
other subsidiaries, AGL Resources provides guarantees to certain gas suppliers
for SouthStar in support of payment obligations. The following table illustrates
our expected future contractual obligation payments such as debt and lease
agreements, and commitments and contingencies as of December 31,
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
&
|
|
|
2012
&
|
|
|
2014
&
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
thereafter
|
|
Recorded
contractual obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
debt
|
|
$
|
1,675
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
302
|
|
|
$
|
242
|
|
|
$
|
1,131
|
|
Short-term
debt
|
|
|
866
|
|
|
|
866
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Environmental remediation
liabilities
(1)
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
PRP costs
(1)
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,836
|
|
|
$
|
932
|
|
|
$
|
434
|
|
|
$
|
329
|
|
|
$
|
1,141
|
|
Unrecorded
contractual obligations and commitments
(2)
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
charges
(3)
|
|
$
|
975
|
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
|
$
|
168
|
|
|
$
|
137
|
|
|
$
|
576
|
|
Pipeline
charges, storage capacity and gas supply
(4)
|
|
|
1,713
|
|
|
|
491
|
|
|
|
573
|
|
|
|
299
|
|
|
|
350
|
|
Operating
leases
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
Standby
letters of credit, performance / surety bonds
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Asset
management agreements
(5)
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Pension contributions
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,916
|
|
|
$
|
682
|
|
|
$
|
808
|
|
|
$
|
463
|
|
|
$
|
963
|
|
(1)
|
Includes
charges recoverable through rate rider
mechanisms.
|
(2)
|
In
accordance with GAAP, these items are not reflected in our consolidated
balance sheets.
|
(3)
|
Floating
rate debt is based on the interest rate as of December 31, 2008, and the
maturity of the underlying debt instrument. As of December 31, 2008,
we
have $35 million of accrued interest on our consolidated balance sheet
that will be paid in 2009.
|
(4)
|
Charges
recoverable through a natural gas cost recovery mechanism or alternatively
billed to Marketers, and includes demand charges associated with
Sequent.
|
(5)
|
Represent
fixed-fee minimum payments for Sequent’s affiliated asset
management.
|
Pipeline Charges, Storage Capacity
and Gas Supply Contracts.
A subsidiary of NUI entered into two 20-year
agreements for the firm transportation and storage of natural gas during 2003
with annual aggregate demand charges of approximately $5 million. As a result of
our acquisition of NUI and in accordance with SFAS 141, we valued the contracts
at fair value and established a long-term liability of $38 million for the
excess liability that will be amortized to our consolidated statements of
income over the remaining lives of the contracts of $2 million annually through
November 2023 and $1 million annually from November 2023 to November 2028. The
gas supply amount includes SouthStar gas commodity purchase commitments of 15
Bcf at floating gas prices calculated using forward natural gas prices as of
December 31, 2008, and is valued at $85 million.
Operating leases.
We have
certain operating leases with provisions for step rent or escalation payments
and certain lease concessions. We account for these leases by recognizing the
future minimum lease payments on a straight-line basis over the respective
minimum lease terms, in accordance with SFAS 13. However, this accounting
treatment does not affect the future annual operating lease cash obligations as
shown herein. We expect to fund these obligations with cash flow from operating
and financing activities.
Standby letters of credit and
performance / surety bonds.
We also have incurred various financial
commitments in the normal course of business. Contingent financial commitments
represent obligations that become payable only if certain predefined events
occur, such as financial guarantees, and include the nature of the guarantee and
the maximum potential amount of future payments that could be required of us as
the guarantor. We would expect to fund these contingent financial commitments
with operating and financing cash flows.
Pension and Postretirement
Obligations.
Generally, our funding policy is to contribute annually an
amount that will at least equal the minimum amount required to comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Additionally, we calculate any
required pension contributions using the projected unit credit cost method.
However, additional voluntary contributions are made from time to time as
considered necessary. Contributions are intended to provide not only for
benefits attributed to service to date but also for those expected to be earned
in the future. The contributions represent the portion of the postretirement
costs we are responsible for under the terms of our plan and minimum funding
required by state regulatory commissions.
The state
regulatory commissions have phase-ins that defer a portion of the postretirement
benefit expense for future recovery. We recorded a regulatory asset for these
future recoveries of $11 million as of December 31, 2008 and $12 million as of
December 31, 2007. In addition, we recorded a regulatory liability of $5 million
as of December 31, 2008 and $4 million as of December 31, 2007 for our expected
expenses under the AGL Postretirement Plan. See
Note 3
“Employee Benefit Plans,” for additional information about our pension and
postretirement plans.
We were
not required to make a minimum funding contribution to our pension plans during
2008. Based on the current funding status of the plans, we would be
required to make a minimum contribution to the plans of approximately $7 million
in 2009. We are planning to make additional contributions in 2009 up to $61
million, for a total of up to $68 million, in order to preserve the current
level of benefits under the plans and in accordance with funding
requirements of the Pension Protection Act.
The
preparation of our financial statements requires us to make estimates and
judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and
expenses and the related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. We
base our estimates on historical experience and various other assumptions that
we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, and we evaluate our
estimates on an ongoing basis. Our actual results may differ from our estimates.
Each of the following critical accounting policies involves complex situations
requiring a high degree of judgment either in the application and interpretation
of existing literature or in the development of estimates that impact our
financial statements.
Pipeline
Replacement Program Liabilities
Atlanta Gas Light was ordered by the
Georgia Commission (through a joint stipulation and a subsequent settlement
agreement between Atlanta Gas Light and the Georgia Commission staff) to
undertake a PRP that would replace all bare steel and cast iron pipe in its
system. Approximately 68 miles of cast iron and 420 miles of bare steel pipe
still require replacement. If Atlanta Gas Light does not perform in accordance
with the initial and amended PRP stipulation, it can be assessed certain
nonperformance penalties. However to date, Atlanta Gas Light is in full
compliance.
The
stipulation also provides for recovery of all prudent costs incurred under the
program, which Atlanta Gas Light has recorded as a regulatory asset. The
regulatory asset has two components:
·
|
the
costs incurred to date that have not yet been recovered through rate
riders
|
·
|
the
future expected costs to be recovered through rate
riders
|
The
determination of future expected costs associated with our PRP involves
judgment. Factors that must be considered in estimating the future expected
costs are projected capital expenditure spending, including labor and material
costs, and the remaining infrastructure footage to be replaced for the remaining
years of the program. We recorded a long-term liability of $140 million as of
December 31, 2008 and $190 million as of December 31, 2007, which represented
engineering estimates for remaining capital expenditure costs in the PRP. As of
December 31, 2008, we had recorded a current liability of $49 million,
representing expected PRP expenditures for the next 12 months. We report these
estimates on an undiscounted basis. If Atlanta Gas Light’s PRP expenditures,
subject to future recovery, were $10 million higher or lower its incremental
expected annual revenues would have changed by approximately $1
million.
Environmental
Remediation Liabilities
We historically reported estimates of future
remediation costs based on probabilistic models of potential costs. We report
these estimates on an undiscounted basis. As we continue to conduct the actual
remediation and enter into cleanup contracts, we are increasingly able to
provide conventional engineering estimates of the likely costs of many elements
of the remediation program. These estimates contain various engineering
uncertainties, and we continuously attempt to refine and update these
engineering estimates.
Our
latest available estimate as of December 31, 2008 for those elements of the
remediation program with in-place contracts or engineering cost estimates is $12
million for Atlanta Gas Light’s Georgia and Florida sites. This is a decrease of
$3 million from the December 31, 2007 estimate of projected engineering and
in-place contracts. For elements of the remediation program where Atlanta Gas
Light still cannot perform engineering cost estimates, considerable variability
remains in available estimates. The estimated remaining cost of future actions
at these sites is $26 million, which includes less than $1 million in estimates
of certain other costs it pays related to administering the remediation program
and remediation of sites currently in the investigation phase. Beyond 2010,
these costs cannot be estimated. As of December 31, 2008, we have recorded a
liability of $38 million.
Atlanta
Gas Light’s environmental remediation liability is included in its corresponding
regulatory asset. Atlanta Gas Light’s estimate does not include other potential
expenses, such as unasserted property damage, personal injury or natural
resource damage claims, unbudgeted legal expenses, or other costs for which it
may be held liable but with respect to which the amount cannot be reasonably
forecast. Atlanta Gas Light’s recovery of environmental remediation costs is
subject to review by the Georgia Commission, which may seek to disallow the
recovery of some expenses.
In New
Jersey, Elizabethtown Gas is currently conducting remediation activities with
oversight from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Although
the actual total cost of future environmental investigation and remediation
efforts cannot be estimated with precision, the range of reasonably probable
costs is $58 million to $116 million. As of December 31, 2008, we have recorded
a liability of $58 million.
The New
Jersey Commission has authorized Elizabethtown Gas to recover prudently incurred
remediation costs for the New Jersey properties through its remediation
adjustment clause. As a result, Elizabethtown Gas has recorded a regulatory
asset of approximately $66 million, inclusive of interest, as of December 31,
2008, reflecting the future recovery of both incurred costs and future
remediation liabilities in the state of New Jersey. Elizabethtown Gas has also
been successful in recovering a portion of remediation costs incurred in New
Jersey from its insurance carriers and continues to pursue additional recovery.
As of December 31, 2008, the variation between the amounts of the environmental
remediation cost liability recorded in the consolidated balance sheet and the
associated regulatory asset is due to expenditures for environmental
investigation and remediation exceeding recoveries from ratepayers and insurance
carriers.
We also
own remediation sites located outside of New Jersey. One site, in Elizabeth
City, North Carolina, is subject to an order by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Preliminary estimates for investigation and
remediation costs range from $10 million to $20 million. As of December 31,
2008, we had recorded a liability of $10 million related to this site. There is
one other site in North Carolina where investigation and remediation is
probable, although no regulatory order exists and we do not believe costs
associated with this site can be reasonably estimated. In addition, there are as
many as six other sites with which we had some association, although no basis
for liability has been asserted. We do not believe that costs to investigate and
remediate these sites, if any, can be reasonably estimated at this
time.
With
respect to these costs, we currently pursue or intend to pursue recovery from
ratepayers, former owners and operators and insurance carriers. While we have
been successful in recovering a portion of these remediation costs from our
insurance carriers, we are not able to express a belief as to the success of
additional recovery efforts. We are working with the regulatory agencies to
manage our remediation costs so as to mitigate the impact of such costs on both
ratepayers and shareholders.
Derivatives and
Hedging Activities
SFAS 133, as updated by SFAS 149, established
accounting and reporting standards which require that every derivative financial
instrument (including certain derivative instruments embedded in other
contracts) be recorded in the balance sheet as either an asset or liability
measured at its fair value. However, if the derivative transaction qualifies for
and is designated as a normal purchase and sale, it is exempted from the fair
value accounting treatment of SFAS 133, as updated by SFAS 149, and is accounted
for using traditional accrual accounting.
SFAS 133
requires that changes in the derivative’s fair value be recognized currently in
earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met. If the derivatives
meet those criteria, SFAS 133 allows a derivative’s gains and losses to offset
related results on the hedged item in the income statement in the case of a fair
value hedge, or to record the gains and losses in OCI until the hedged
transaction occurs in the case of a cash flow hedge. Additionally, SFAS 133
requires that a company formally designate a derivative as a hedge as well as
document and assess the effectiveness of derivatives associated with
transactions that receive hedge accounting treatment. SFAS 133 applies to
treasury locks and interest rate swaps executed by AGL Capital and gas commodity
contracts executed by Sequent and SouthStar. SFAS 133 also applies to gas
commodity contracts executed by Elizabethtown Gas under a New Jersey Commission
authorized hedging program that requires gains and losses on these derivatives
are reflected in purchased gas costs and ultimately billed to customers. Our
derivative and hedging activities are described in further detail in
Note 2
“Financial Instruments and Risk
Management” and
Item 1 “Business
.”
Commodity-related Derivative
Instruments
We are exposed to risks associated with changes in the market
price of natural gas. Through Sequent and SouthStar, we use derivative
instruments to reduce our exposure impact to our results of operations due to
the risk of changes in the price of natural gas.
Sequent
recognizes the change in value of a derivative instrument as an unrealized gain
or loss in revenues in the period when the market value of the instrument
changes. Sequent recognizes cash inflows and outflows associated with the
settlement of its risk management activities in operating cash flows, and
reports these settlements as receivables and payables in the balance sheet
separately from the risk management activities reported as energy marketing
receivables and trade payables.
We
attempt to mitigate substantially all our commodity price risk associated with
Sequent’s natural gas storage portfolio and lock in the economic margin at the
time we enter into purchase transactions for our stored natural gas. We purchase
natural gas for storage when the current market price we pay plus storage costs
is less than the market price we could receive in the future. We lock in the
economic margin by selling NYMEX futures contracts or other OTC derivatives in
the forward months corresponding with our withdrawal periods. We use contracts
to sell natural gas at that future price to lock in the operating revenues we
will ultimately realize when the stored natural gas is actually sold. These
contracts meet the definition of a derivative under SFAS 133.
The
purchase, storage and sale of natural gas are accounted for differently from the
derivatives we use to mitigate the commodity price risk associated with our
storage portfolio. That difference in accounting can result in volatility in our
reported operating margin, even though the economic margin is essentially
unchanged from the date we entered into the transactions. We do not currently
use hedge accounting under SFAS 133 to account for this activity.
Natural
gas that we purchase and inject into storage is accounted for at the lower of
weighted average cost or market value. Under current accounting guidance, we
recognize a loss in any period when the market price for natural gas is lower
than the carrying amount of our purchased natural gas inventory. Costs to store
the natural gas are recognized in the period the costs are incurred. We
recognize revenues and cost of natural gas sold in our statement of consolidated
income in the period we sell gas and it is delivered out of the storage
facility.
The
derivatives we use to mitigate commodity price risk and substantially lock in
the operating margin upon the sale of stored natural gas are accounted for at
fair value and marked to market each period, with changes in fair value
recognized as unrealized gains or losses in the period of change. This
difference in accounting - the lower of weighted average cost or market basis
for our storage inventory versus the fair value accounting for the derivatives
used to mitigate commodity price risk - can and does result in volatility in our
reported earnings.
Over
time, gains or losses on the sale of storage inventory will be substantially
offset by losses or gains on the derivatives, resulting in realization of the
economic profit margin we expected when we entered into the transactions. This
accounting difference causes Sequent’s earnings on its storage positions to be
affected by natural gas price changes, even though the economic profits remain
essentially unchanged.
SouthStar
also uses derivative instruments to manage exposures arising from changing
commodity prices. SouthStar’s objective for holding these derivatives is to
minimize volatility in wholesale commodity natural gas prices. A portion of
SouthStar’s derivative transactions are designated as cash flow hedges under
SFAS 133. Derivative gains or losses arising from cash flow hedges are recorded
in OCI and are reclassified into earnings in the same period the underlying
hedged item is reflected in the income statement. As of December 31, 2008, the
ending balance in OCI for derivative transactions designated as cash flow hedges
under SFAS 133 was a loss of $6 million, net of minority interest and
taxes. Any hedge ineffectiveness, defined as when the gains or losses on the
hedging instrument do not offset the losses or gains on the hedged item, is
recorded into earnings in the period in which it occurs. SouthStar currently has
minimal hedge ineffectiveness. SouthStar’s remaining derivative instruments are
not designated as hedges under SFAS 133. Therefore, changes in their fair value
are recorded in earnings in the period of change.
SouthStar
also enters into weather derivative instruments in order to stabilize operating
margins in the event of warmer-than-normal and colder-than-normal weather in the
winter months. These contracts are accounted for using the intrinsic value
method under the guidance of EITF 99-02. Changes in the intrinsic value of these
derivatives are recorded in earnings in the period of change. The weather
derivative contracts contain strike amount provisions based on cumulative
heating degree days for the covered periods. In 2008 and 2007, SouthStar entered
into weather derivatives (swaps and options) for the respective winter heating
seasons, primarily from November through March. As of December 31, 2008,
SouthStar recorded a current asset of $4 million for this hedging
activity.
Contingencies
Our
accounting policies for contingencies cover a variety of business activities,
including contingencies for potentially uncollectible receivables, rate matters,
and legal and environmental exposures. We accrue for these contingencies when
our assessments indicate that it is probable that a liability has been incurred
or an asset will not be recovered, and an amount can be reasonably estimated in
accordance with SFAS 5. We base our estimates for these liabilities on currently
available facts and our estimates of the ultimate outcome or resolution of the
liability in the future. Actual results may differ from estimates, and estimates
can be, and often are, revised either negatively or positively, depending on
actual outcomes or changes in the facts or expectations surrounding each
potential exposure.
Pension and
O
ther
P
ostretirement
P
lans
Our
pension and other postretirement plan costs and liabilities are determined on an
actuarial basis and are affected by numerous assumptions and estimates including
the market value of plan assets, estimates of the expected return on plan
assets, assumed discount rates and current demographic and actuarial mortality
data. We annually review the estimates and assumptions underlying our pension
and other postretirement plan costs and liabilities. The assumed discount rate
and the expected return on plan assets are the assumptions that generally have
the most significant impact on our pension costs and liabilities. The
assumed discount rate, the assumed health care cost trend rate and the assumed
rates of retirement generally have the most significant impact on our
postretirement plan costs and liabilities.
Our total
pension and other benefit costs remained relatively unchanged during the
current-year period when compared with the prior-year period as the assumptions
we made during our annual pension plan valuation were consistent with the prior
year. The discount rate used to compute the present value of a plan’s
liabilities generally is based on rates of high-grade corporate bonds with
maturities similar to the average period over which the benefits will be
paid. Our expected return on our pension plan assets remained constant at
9%.
The
discount rate is used principally to calculate the actuarial present value of
our pension and postretirement obligations and net pension and postretirement
cost. When establishing our discount rate which we have determined to be 6.2% at
December 31, 2008, we consider high quality corporate bond rates based on
Moody’s Corporate AA long-term bond rate of 5.62% and the Citigroup Pension
Liability rate of 5.87% at December 31, 2008. We further use these market
indices as a comparison to a single equivalent discount rate derived with the
assistance of our actuarial advisors. This analysis as of December 31, 2008
produced a single equivalent discount rate of 6.2%.
The
actuarial assumptions used may differ materially from actual results due to
changing market and economic conditions, higher or lower withdrawal rates, or
longer or shorter life spans of participants. These differences may result in a
significant impact on the amount of pension expense recorded in future
periods.
The
expected long-term rate of return on assets is used to calculate the expected
return on plan assets component of our annual pension and postretirement plan
cost. We estimate the expected return on plan assets by evaluating expected bond
returns, equity risk premiums, asset allocations, the effects of active plan
management, the impact of periodic plan asset rebalancing and historical
performance. We also consider guidance from our investment advisors in making a
final determination of our expected rate of return on assets. To the extent the
actual rate of return on assets realized over the course of a year is
greater than or less than the assumed rate, that year’s annual pension or
postretirement plan cost is not affected. Rather, this gain or loss reduces or
increases future pension or postretirement plan costs.
Our
postretirement plans have been capped at 2.5% for increases in health care
costs. Consequently, a one-percentage-point increase or decrease in the assumed
health care trend rate does not materially affect the periodic benefit cost for
our postretirement plans. A one percentage-point increase in the assumed health
care cost trend rate would increase our accumulated projected benefit obligation
by $4 million. A one percentage-point decrease in the assumed health care cost
trend rate would decrease our accumulated projected benefit obligation by $3
million. Our assumed rate of retirement is estimated based upon an annual review
of participant census information as of the measurement date.
At
December 31, 2008, our pension and postretirement liability increased by
approximately $178 million, primarily resulting from an after-tax loss to OCI of
$111 million ($184 million before tax), offset by $5 million in benefit payments
that we funded and $1 million in net pension and postretirement benefit
credits we recorded in 2008. These changes reflect our funding contributions to
the plan, benefit payments out of the plans, and updated valuations for the
projected benefit obligation (PBO) and plan assets.
Equity
market performance and corporate bond rates have a significant effect on our
reported unfunded accumulated benefit obligation (ABO), as the primary factors
that drive the value of our unfunded ABO are the assumed discount rate and the
actual return on plan assets. Additionally, equity market performance has a
significant effect on our market-related value of plan assets (MRVPA), which is
a calculated value and differs from the actual market value of plan assets. The
MRVPA recognizes differences between the actual market value and expected market
value of our plan assets and is determined by our actuaries using a five-year
moving weighted average methodology. Gains and losses on plan assets are spread
through the MRVPA based on the five-year moving weighted average methodology,
which affects the expected return on plan assets component of pension
expense.
See “
Note 3, Employee Benefit Plans
,” for additional information
on our pension and postretirement plans, which includes our investment policies
and strategies, target allocation ranges and weighted average asset allocations
for 2008 and 2007.
The
actual return on our pension plan assets compared to the expected return on plan
assets of 8.75% will have an impact on our ABO as of December 31, 2009 and our
pension expense for 2009. We are unable to determine how this actual return on
plan assets will affect future ABO and pension expense, as actuarial assumptions
and differences between actual and expected returns on plan assets are
determined at the time we complete our actuarial evaluation as of December 31,
2009. Our actual returns may also be positively or negatively impacted as a
result of future performance in the equity and bond markets. The following
tables illustrate the effect of changing the critical actuarial assumptions, as
discussed previously, while holding all other assumptions constant.
AGL Resources Inc.
Retirement and Postretirement Plans
In
millions
|
|
|
|
|
Pension
Benefits
|
Actuarial
assumptions
|
|
Percentage-point
change in assumption
|
|
|
Increase
(decrease) in ABO
|
|
|
Increase
(decrease) in cost
|
|
Expected
long-term return on plan assets
|
|
|
+/-
1
|
%
|
|
$
|
- /
-
|
|
|
$
|
(3)
/ 3
|
|
Discount
rate
|
|
|
+/-
1
|
%
|
|
|
(41)
/ 46
|
|
|
|
(4)
/ 4
|
|
NUI Corporation
Retirement Plan
In
millions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actuarial
assumptions
|
|
Percentage-point
change in assumption
|
|
|
Increase
(decrease) in ABO
|
|
|
Pension
Benefits Increase (decrease) in cost
|
|
Expected
long-term return on plan assets
|
|
|
+/-
1
|
%
|
|
$
|
- /
-
|
|
|
$
|
(1)
/ 1
|
|
Discount
rate
|
|
|
+/-
1
|
%
|
|
|
(6)
/ 7
|
|
|
|
- /
(-)
|
|
Differences
between actuarial assumptions and actual plan results are deferred and amortized
into cost when the accumulated differences exceed 10% of the greater of the PBO
or the MRVPA. If necessary, the excess is amortized over the average remaining
service period of active employees.
In
addition to the assumptions listed above, the measurement of the plans’
obligations and costs depend on other factors such as employee demographics, the
level of contributions made to the plans, earnings on the plans’ assets and
mortality rates. Consequently, based on these factors as well as a discount rate
of 6.2%, an expected return on plan assets of 8.75% and our expectations with
respect to plan contributions, we expect net periodic pension and other
postretirement benefit costs to be in the range of $10 million to $12 million in
2009, an $11 million to $13 million increase relative to
2008.
Income
Taxe
s
We
account for income taxes in accordance with SFAS 109 and FIN 48 which require
that deferred tax assets and liabilities be recognized using enacted tax rates
for the effect of temporary differences between the book and tax basis of
recorded assets and liabilities. SFAS 109 and FIN 48 also requires that deferred
tax assets be reduced by a valuation if it is more likely than not that some
portion or all of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. We adopted the
provisions of FIN 48 on January 1, 2007. At the date of adoption, as of December
31, 2007 and as of December 31, 2008, we did not have a liability for
unrecognized tax benefits.
Our net
long-term deferred tax liability totaled $646 million at December 31, 2008 (see
Note 8
“Income Taxes”). This liability is estimated
based on the expected future tax consequences of items recognized in the
financial statements. After application of the federal statutory tax rate to
book income, judgment is required with respect to the timing and deductibility
of expense in our income tax returns. For state income tax and other taxes,
judgment is also required with respect to the apportionment among the various
jurisdictions. A valuation allowance is recorded if we expect that it is more
likely than not that our deferred tax assets will not be realized. We had a $3
million valuation allowance on $104 million of deferred tax assets as of
December 31, 2008, reflecting the expectation that most of these assets will be
realized. In addition, we operate within multiple taxing jurisdictions and we
are subject to audit in these jurisdictions. These audits can involve complex
issues, which may require an extended period of time to resolve. We maintain a
liability for the estimate of potential income tax exposure and in our opinion
adequate provisions for income taxes have been made for all
years.
Previously
discussed
Recently
issued
SFAS 161
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS 161, which is effective for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2008. SFAS 161 amends the disclosure requirements
of SFAS 133 to provide an enhanced understanding of how and why derivative
instruments are used, how they are accounted for and their effect on an entity’s
financial condition, performance and cash flows. We will adopt SFAS 161 on
January 1, 2009 which will require additional disclosures, but will not have a
financial impact to our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
financial condition.
FSP EITF
03-6-1
The FASB issued this FSP in June 2008 and it is effective for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. This FSP classifies unvested
share-based payment grants containing nonforfeitable rights to dividends as
participating securities that will be included in the computation of earnings
per share. As of December 31, 2008, we had approximately 145,000 restricted
shares with nonforfeitable dividend rights. We will adopt FSP EITF 03-6-1
effective on January 1, 2009.
FSP FAS
133-1
The FASB issued this FSP in September 2008 and it is effective for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. This FSP requires more detailed
disclosures about credit derivatives, including the potential adverse effects of
changes in credit risk on the financial position, financial performance and cash
flows of the sellers of the instruments. This FSP will have no financial impact
to our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. We
will adopt FSP FAS 133-1 effective on January 1, 2009.
FSP FAS
157-3
The FASB issued this FSP in October 2008 and it is effective upon
issuance including prior periods for which financial statements have not been
issued. This FSP clarifies the application of SFAS 157 in an inactive market,
including; how internal assumptions should be considered when measuring fair
value, how observable market information in a market that is not active should
be considered and how the use of market quotes should be used when assessing
observable and unobservable data. We adopted this FSP as of September 30, 2008,
which had no financial impact to our consolidated results of operations, cash
flows or financial condition.
FSP FAS 140-4 and
FIN 46R-8
The FASB issued this FSP in December 2008 and it is effective
for the first reporting period ending after December 15, 2008. This FSP requires
additional disclosures related to variable interest entities in accordance with
SFAS 140 and FIN 46R. These disclosures include significant judgments and
assumptions, restrictions on assets, risks and the affects on financial
position, financial performance and cash flows. We adopted this FSP as of
December 31, 2008, which had no financial impact to our consolidated results of
operations, cash flows or financial condition.
We are
exposed to risks associated with commodity prices, interest rates and credit.
Commodity price risk is defined as the potential loss that we may incur as a
result of changes in the fair value of natural gas. Interest rate risk results
from our portfolio of debt and equity instruments that we issue to provide
financing and liquidity for our business. Credit risk results from the extension
of credit throughout all aspects of our business but is particularly
concentrated at Atlanta Gas Light in distribution operations and in wholesale
services.
Our Risk
Management Committee (RMC) is responsible for establishing the overall risk
management policies and monitoring compliance with, and adherence to, the terms
within these policies, including approval and authorization levels and
delegation of these levels. Our RMC consists of members of senior management who
monitor open commodity price risk positions and other types of risk, corporate
exposures, credit exposures and overall results of our risk management
activities. It is chaired by our chief risk officer, who is responsible for
ensuring that appropriate reporting mechanisms exist for the RMC to perform its
monitoring functions. Our risk management activities and related accounting
treatments are described in further detail in
Note
2
,
Financial
Instruments and
Risk
Management
.
Commodity
Price Risk
Retail Energy
Operations
SouthStar’s use of derivatives is governed by a risk
management policy, approved and monitored by its Risk and Asset Management
Committee, which prohibits the use of derivatives for speculative
purposes.
Energy Marketing and Risk Management
Activities
SouthStar generates operating margin from the active
management of storage positions through a variety of hedging transactions and
derivative instruments aimed at managing exposures arising from changing
commodity prices. SouthStar uses these hedging instruments to lock in
economic margins (as spreads between wholesale and retail commodity prices widen
between periods) and thereby minimize its exposure to declining operating
margins.
We have
designated a portion of SouthStar’s derivative transactions as cash flow hedges
in accordance with SFAS 133. We record derivative gains or losses arising from
cash flow hedges in OCI and reclassify them into earnings as cost of gas in our
consolidated statement of income in the same period as the underlying hedged
transaction occurs and is recorded in earnings. We record any hedge
ineffectiveness, defined as when the gains or losses on the hedging instrument
do not offset and are greater than the losses or gains on the hedged item, in
cost of gas in our consolidated statement of income in the period in which the
ineffectiveness occurs. SouthStar currently has minimal hedge ineffectiveness.
We have not designated the remainder of SouthStar’s derivative instruments as
hedges under SFAS 133 and, accordingly, we record changes in their fair value in
earnings as cost of gas in our consolidated statements of income in the period
of change.
SouthStar
recorded a net unrealized loss related to changes in the fair value of
derivative instruments utilized in its energy marketing and risk management
activities of $27 million during 2008 and $7 million during 2007, and net
unrealized gains of $14 million during 2006. The following tables illustrate the
change in the net fair value of the derivative instruments and energy-trading
contracts during 2008, 2007 and 2006 and provide details of the net fair value
of contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Net
fair value of contracts outstanding at beginning of period
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
Contracts
realized or otherwise settled during period
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Change
in net fair value of contracts
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Net
fair value of contracts outstanding at end of period
|
|
|
(17
|
)
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
Netting
of cash collateral
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Cash
collateral and net fair value of contracts outstanding at end of
period
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
The
sources of SouthStar’s net fair value at December 31, 2008, are as
follows.
In
millions
|
|
Prices
actively quoted
(1)
|
|
|
Prices
provided by other external sources
(2)
|
|
Mature
through 2009
|
|
$
|
(24
|
)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
Mature
through 2010
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
net fair value
|
|
$
|
(19
|
)
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
(1)
|
Valued
using NYMEX futures prices.
|
(2)
|
Values
primarily related to weather derivative transactions that are valued on an
intrinsic basis in accordance with EITF 99-02 as based on heating degree
days. Additionally, includes values associated with basis transactions
that represent the commodity from a NYMEX delivery point to the contract
delivery point. These transactions are based on quotes obtained either
through electronic trading platforms or directly from
brokers.
|
SouthStar
routinely utilizes various types of financial and other instruments to mitigate
certain commodity price and weather risks inherent in the natural gas industry.
These instruments include a variety of exchange-traded and OTC energy contracts,
such as forward contracts, futures contracts, options contracts and swap
agreements. The following table includes the cash collateral fair values and
average values of SouthStar’s energy marketing and risk management assets and
liabilities as of December 31, 2008 and 2007. SouthStar bases the average values
on monthly averages for the 12 months ended December 31, 2008 and
2007.
|
|
Average
values at
December
31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Asset
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
Liability
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
Cash
collateral and fair values at December 31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Asset
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
13
|
|
Liability
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Value-at-risk
A 95%
confidence interval is used to evaluate VaR exposure. A 95% confidence interval
means there is a 5% confidence that the actual loss in portfolio value will be
greater than the calculated VaR value over the holding period. We calculate VaR
based on the variance-covariance technique. This technique requires several
assumptions for the basis of the calculation, such as price distribution, price
volatility, confidence interval and holding period. Our VaR may not be
comparable to a similarly titled measure of another company because, although
VaR is a common metric in the energy industry, there is no established industry
standard for calculating VaR or for the assumptions underlying such
calculations. SouthStar’s portfolio of positions for 2008 and 2007, had annual
average 1-day holding period VaRs of less than $100,000, and its high, low and
period end 1-day holding period VaR were immaterial.
Wholesale
Services
Sequent routinely uses various types of financial and other
instruments to mitigate certain commodity price risks inherent in the natural
gas industry. These instruments include a variety of exchange-traded and OTC
energy contracts, such as forward contracts, futures contracts, options
contracts and financial swap agreements.
Energy Marketing and Risk Management
Activities
We account for
derivative transactions in connection with Sequent’s energy marketing activities
on a fair value basis in accordance with SFAS 133. We record derivative energy
commodity contracts (including both physical transactions and financial
instruments) at fair value, with unrealized gains or losses from changes in fair
value reflected in our earnings in the period of change.
Sequent’s
energy-trading contracts are recorded on an accrual basis as required under the
EITF 02-03 rescission of EITF 98-10, unless they are derivatives that must be
recorded at fair value under SFAS 133.
The
changes in fair value of Sequent’s derivative instruments utilized in its energy
marketing and risk management activities and contract settlements increased the
net fair value of its contracts outstanding by $25 million during 2008, reduced
net fair value by $62 million during 2007 and increased net fair value by $132
million during 2006. The following tables illustrate the change in the net fair
value of Sequent’s derivative instruments during 2008, 2007 and 2006 and provide
details of the net fair value of contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2008,
2007 and 2006.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Net
fair value of contracts outstanding at beginning of period
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
|
$
|
119
|
|
|
$
|
(13
|
)
|
Contracts
realized or otherwise settled during period
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
(102
|
)
|
|
|
17
|
|
Change
in net fair value of contracts
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
Net
fair value of contracts outstanding at end of period
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
Netting
of cash collateral
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
Cash
collateral and net fair value of contracts outstanding at end of
period
|
|
$
|
179
|
|
|
$
|
48
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
The
sources of Sequent’s net fair value at December 31, 2008, are as
follows.
In
millions
|
|
Prices
actively quoted
(1)
|
|
|
Prices
provided by other external sources
(2)
|
|
Mature
through 2009
|
|
$
|
(26
|
)
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
Mature
2010 – 2011
|
|
|
(19
|
)
|
|
|
21
|
|
Mature
2012 - 2014
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Total
net fair value
|
|
$
|
(45
|
)
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
(1)
|
Valued
using NYMEX futures prices.
|
(2)
|
Valued
using basis transactions that represent the cost to transport the
commodity from a NYMEX delivery point to the contract delivery point.
These transactions are based on quotes obtained either through electronic
trading platforms or directly from
brokers.
|
The
following tables include the cash collateral fair values and average values of
Sequent’s energy marketing and risk management assets and liabilities as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007. Sequent bases the average values on monthly averages
for the 12 months ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
Average
values at
December
31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Asset
|
|
$
|
96
|
|
|
$
|
63
|
|
Liability
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
Cash
collateral and fair values at December 31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Asset
|
|
$
|
206
|
|
|
$
|
61
|
|
Liability
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Value-at-risk
Sequent employs
a systematic approach to evaluating and managing the risks associated with
contracts related to wholesale marketing and risk management, including VaR.
Similar to SouthStar, Sequent uses a 1-day holding period and a 95% confidence
interval to evaluate its VaR exposure.
Sequent’s
open exposure is managed in accordance with established policies that limit
market risk and require daily reporting of potential financial exposure to
senior management, including the chief risk officer. Because Sequent generally
manages physical gas assets and economically protects its positions by hedging
in the futures and OTC markets, its open exposure is generally minimal,
permitting Sequent to operate within relatively low VaR limits. Sequent employs
daily risk testing, using both VaR and stress testing, to evaluate the risks of
its open positions.
Sequent’s
management actively monitors open commodity positions and the resulting VaR.
Sequent continues to maintain a relatively matched book, where its total buy
volume is close to its sell volume, with minimal open commodity risk. Based on a
95% confidence interval and employing a 1-day holding period for all positions,
Sequent’s portfolio of positions for the 12 months ended December 31, 2008, 2007
and 2006 had the following 1-day holding period VaRs.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Period
end
|
|
$
|
2.5
|
|
|
$
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
1.3
|
|
12-month
average
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
High
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
Low
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
Interest
Rate Risk
Interest
rate fluctuations expose our variable-rate debt to changes in interest expense
and cash flows. We manage interest expense using a combination of fixed-rate and
variable-rate debt. Based on $1,026 million of variable-rate debt, which
includes $865 million of our variable-rate short-term debt and $161 million of
variable-rate gas facility revenue bonds outstanding at December 31, 2008, a 100
basis point change in market interest rates from 1.2% to 2.2% would have
resulted in an increase in pretax interest expense of $10 million on an
annualized basis.
At the
beginning of 2008, we had a notional principal amount of $100 million of
interest rate swap agreements associated with our senior notes. In March 2008,
we terminated these interest rate swap agreements. We received a payment of $2
million, which included accrued interest and the fair value of the interest rate
swap agreements at the termination date which was recorded as a liability in our
condensed consolidated balance sheets and will be amortized through January
2011, which is the remaining life of the associated senior notes.
Credit
Risk
Distribution
Operations
Atlanta Gas Light has a concentration of credit risk as it
bills only 11 Marketers in Georgia for its services. The credit risk exposure to
Marketers varies with the time of the year, with exposure at its lowest in the
nonpeak summer months and highest in the peak winter months. Marketers are
responsible for the retail sale of natural gas to end-use customers in Georgia.
These retail functions include customer service, billing, collections, and the
purchase and sale of the natural gas commodity. The provisions of Atlanta Gas
Light’s tariff allow Atlanta Gas Light to obtain security support in an amount
equal to a minimum of two times a Marketer’s highest month’s estimated bill from
Atlanta Gas Light. For 2008, the four largest Marketers based on customer count,
one of which was SouthStar, accounted for approximately 31% of our consolidated
operating margin and 43% of distribution operations’ operating
margin.
Several
factors are designed to mitigate our risks from the increased concentration of
credit that has resulted from deregulation. In addition to the security support
described above, Atlanta Gas Light bills intrastate delivery service to
Marketers in advance rather than in arrears. We accept credit support in the
form of cash deposits, letters of credit/surety bonds from acceptable issuers
and corporate guarantees from investment-grade entities. The RMC reviews on a
monthly basis the adequacy of credit support coverage, credit rating profiles of
credit support providers and payment status of each Marketer. We believe that
adequate policies and procedures have been put in place to properly quantify,
manage and report on Atlanta Gas Light’s credit risk exposure to
Marketers.
Atlanta
Gas Light also faces potential credit risk in connection with assignments of
interstate pipeline transportation and storage capacity to Marketers. Although
Atlanta Gas Light assigns this capacity to Marketers, in the event that a
Marketer fails to pay the interstate pipelines for the capacity, the interstate
pipelines would in all likelihood seek repayment from Atlanta Gas
Light.
Retail Energy
Operations
SouthStar obtains credit scores for its firm residential and
small commercial customers using a national credit reporting agency, enrolling
only those customers that meet or exceed SouthStar’s credit
threshold.
SouthStar
considers potential interruptible and large commercial customers based on a
review of publicly available financial statements and review of commercially
available credit reports. Prior to entering into a physical transaction,
SouthStar also assigns physical wholesale counterparties an internal credit
rating and credit limit based on the counterparties’ Moody’s, S&P and Fitch
ratings, commercially available credit reports and audited financial
statements.
Wholesale
Services
Sequent has established credit policies to determine and monitor
the creditworthiness of counterparties, as well as the quality of pledged
collateral. Sequent also utilizes master netting agreements whenever possible to
mitigate exposure to counterparty credit risk. When Sequent is engaged in more
than one outstanding derivative transaction with the same counterparty and it
also has a legally enforceable netting agreement with that counterparty, the
“net” mark-to-market exposure represents the netting of the positive and
negative exposures with that counterparty and a reasonable measure of Sequent’s
credit risk. Sequent also uses other netting agreements with certain
counterparties with whom it conducts significant transactions.
Master
netting agreements enable Sequent to net certain assets and liabilities by
counterparty. Sequent also nets across product lines and against cash collateral
provided the master netting and cash collateral agreements include such
provisions. Additionally, Sequent may require counterparties to pledge
additional collateral when deemed necessary.
Sequent
conducts credit evaluations and obtains appropriate internal approvals for its
counterparty’s line of credit before any transaction with the counterparty is
executed. In most cases, the counterparty must have a minimum long-term debt
rating of Baa3 from Moody’s and BBB- from S&P. Generally, Sequent requires
credit enhancements by way of guaranty, cash deposit or letter of credit for
transaction counterparties that do not meet the minimum ratings
threshold.
Sequent,
which provides services to retail marketers and utility and industrial
customers, also has a concentration of credit risk as measured by its 30-day
receivable exposure plus forward exposure. As of December 31, 2008, Sequent’s
top 20 counterparties represented approximately 63% of the total counterparty
exposure of $505 million.
As of
December 31, 2008, Sequent’s counterparties, or the counterparties’ guarantors,
had a weighted average S&P equivalent credit rating of A-, which is
consistent with the prior year. The S&P equivalent credit rating is
determined by a process of converting the lower of the S&P or Moody’s
ratings to an internal rating ranging from 9 to 1, with 9 being equivalent to
AAA/Aaa by S&P and Moody’s and 1 being D or Default by S&P and Moody’s.
A counterparty that does not have an external rating is assigned an internal
rating based on the strength of the financial ratios of that counterparty. To
arrive at the weighted average credit rating, each counterparty’s assigned
internal rating is multiplied by the counterparty’s credit exposure and summed
for all counterparties. That sum is divided by the aggregate total
counterparties’ exposures, and this numeric value is then converted to an
S&P equivalent. The following table shows Sequent’s commodity receivable and
payable positions.
|
|
As
of Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
Gross
receivables
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Netting
agreements in place:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty
is investment grade
|
|
$
|
398
|
|
|
$
|
437
|
|
Counterparty
is non-investment grade
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Counterparty
has no external rating
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
No
netting agreements in place:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty
is investment grade
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Amount
recorded on balance sheet
|
|
$
|
549
|
|
|
$
|
598
|
|
|
|
As
of Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
Gross
payables
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Netting
agreements in place:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty
is investment grade
|
|
$
|
266
|
|
|
$
|
356
|
|
Counterparty
is non-investment grade
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Counterparty
has no external rating
|
|
|
228
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
No
netting agreements in place:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty
is investment grade
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Amount
recorded on balance sheet
|
|
$
|
539
|
|
|
$
|
578
|
|
Sequent
has certain trade and credit contracts that have explicit minimum credit rating
requirements. These credit rating requirements typically give counterparties the
right to suspend or terminate credit if our credit ratings are downgraded to
non-investment grade status. Under such circumstances, Sequent would need to
post collateral to continue transacting business with some of its
counterparties. Posting collateral would have a negative effect on our
liquidity. If such collateral were not posted, Sequent’s ability to continue
transacting business with these counterparties would be impaired. If at December
31, 2008, Sequent’s credit ratings had been downgraded to non-investment grade
status, the required amounts to satisfy potential collateral demands under such
agreements between Sequent and its counterparties would have totaled $12
million.
To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders of AGL Resources Inc.:
In our
opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the index appearing
under item 15(a)(1) present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of AGL Resources Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2008 and
2007, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2008 in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in
our opinion, the financial statements schedule listed in the accompanying index
appearing under Item 15(a)(2) presents fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related
consolidated financial statements. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained,
in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2008, based on criteria established in
Internal Control - Integrated
Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for these
financial statements and financial statement schedule, for maintaining effective
internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under
Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial
statements, on the financial statements schedule, and on the Company’s internal
control over financial reporting bases on our integrated audits. We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective
internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining,
on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included
obtaining and understanding of internal control over financial reporting,
assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating
the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed
risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable
basis for our opinions.
As
discussed in Notes 4 and 3, respectively, to the consolidated financial
statements, AGL Resources Inc. and subsidiaries changed its method of accounting
for stock based compensation plans as of January 1, 2006 and its method of
accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans as of
December 31, 2006.
A
company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal
control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i)
pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and
fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company;
(ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to
permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are
being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of
the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the
company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation
of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of
compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Atlanta,
Georgia
February
5, 2009
Our
management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal
control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial
officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control
over financial reporting based on the framework in
Internal Control - Integrated
Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO).
Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of
effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Based on
our evaluation under the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework
issued by COSO, our management concluded that our internal control over
financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2008, in providing
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.
February
5, 2009
/s/ John W Somerhalder
II
John W.
Somerhalder II
Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
/s/ Andrew W.
Evans
Andrew W.
Evans
Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
AGL
Resources Inc.
|
|
As
of
|
|
In
millions
|
|
December
31, 2008
|
|
|
December
31, 2007
|
|
Current
assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy
marketing
|
|
|
549
|
|
|
|
598
|
|
Gas
|
|
|
264
|
|
|
|
213
|
|
Unbilled
revenues
|
|
|
181
|
|
|
|
179
|
|
Other
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
Less
allowance for uncollectible accounts
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
Total
receivables
|
|
|
1,005
|
|
|
|
989
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural
gas stored underground
|
|
|
629
|
|
|
|
521
|
|
Other
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
Total
inventories
|
|
|
663
|
|
|
|
551
|
|
Energy
marketing and risk management assets
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
Unrecovered
PRP costs – current portion
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
Unrecovered
ERC – current portion
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Other
current assets
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
Total
current assets
|
|
|
2,042
|
|
|
|
1,797
|
|
Property,
plant and equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property,
plant and equipment
|
|
|
5,500
|
|
|
|
5,177
|
|
Less
accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
1,684
|
|
|
|
1,611
|
|
Property,
plant and equipment – net
|
|
|
3,816
|
|
|
|
3,566
|
|
Deferred
debits and other assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
420
|
|
Unrecovered
PRP costs
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
|
254
|
|
Unrecovered
ERC
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
135
|
|
Other
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
Total
deferred debits and other assets
|
|
|
852
|
|
|
|
895
|
|
Total
assets
|
|
$
|
6,710
|
|
|
$
|
6,258
|
|
See
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
AGL
Resources Inc.
Consolidated
Balance Sheets - Liabilities and Capitalization
|
|
As
of
|
|
In
millions, except share amounts
|
|
December
31, 2008
|
|
|
December
31, 2007
|
|
Current
liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term
debt
|
|
$
|
866
|
|
|
$
|
580
|
|
Energy
marketing trade payable
|
|
|
539
|
|
|
|
578
|
|
Accounts
payable – trade
|
|
|
202
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
Customer
deposits
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Accrued
PRP costs – current portion
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
Energy
marketing and risk management liabilities – current
portion
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Accrued
wages and salaries
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Accrued
taxes
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Accrued
interest
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
Deferred
natural gas costs
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Accrued
environmental remediation liabilities – current portion
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Other
current liabilities
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
Total
current liabilities
|
|
|
1,983
|
|
|
|
1,634
|
|
Accumulated
deferred income taxes
|
|
|
571
|
|
|
|
566
|
|
Long-term liabilities
and other deferred
credits
(excluding long-term debt)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued
pension obligations
|
|
|
199
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
Accumulated
removal costs
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
169
|
|
Accrued
PRP costs
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
Accrued
environmental remediation liabilities
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
Accrued
postretirement benefit costs
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Other
long-term liabilities and other deferred credits
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
152
|
|
Total
long-term liabilities and other deferred credits (excluding long-term
debt)
|
|
|
797
|
|
|
|
675
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
(see Note 7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
Capitalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
debt
|
|
|
1,675
|
|
|
|
1,675
|
|
Common
shareholders’ equity, $5 par value; 750 million shares authorized; 76.9
million and 76.4 million shares outstanding at December 31, 2008 and
2007
|
|
|
1,652
|
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
Total
capitalization
|
|
|
3,327
|
|
|
|
3,336
|
|
Total
liabilities and capitalization
|
|
$
|
6,710
|
|
|
$
|
6,258
|
|
See
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
AGL
Resources Inc.
|
|
Years
ended December 31,
|
|
In
millions, except per share amounts
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of gas
|
|
|
1,654
|
|
|
|
1,369
|
|
|
|
1,482
|
|
Operation
and maintenance
|
|
|
472
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
473
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
Taxes
other than income taxes
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
2,322
|
|
|
|
2,005
|
|
|
|
2,133
|
|
Operating
income
|
|
|
478
|
|
|
|
489
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
Other
income (expenses)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
Interest
expense, net
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
(125
|
)
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
Earnings
before income taxes
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
Income
taxes
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
211
|
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
Per
common share data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
earnings per common share
|
|
$
|
2.85
|
|
|
$
|
2.74
|
|
|
$
|
2.73
|
|
Diluted
earnings per common share
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
Cash
dividends declared per common share
|
|
$
|
1.68
|
|
|
$
|
1.64
|
|
|
$
|
1.48
|
|
Weighted
average number of common shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
77.6
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
76.6
|
|
|
|
77.4
|
|
|
|
78.0
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
AGL
Resources Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Shares
held
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
stock
|
|
|
Premium
on
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
comprehensive
|
|
|
in
treasury
|
|
|
|
|
In
millions, except per share amounts
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
common
stock
|
|
|
reinvested
|
|
|
loss
|
|
|
and
trust
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Balance
as of December 31, 2005
|
|
|
77.8
|
|
|
$
|
389
|
|
|
$
|
655
|
|
|
$
|
508
|
|
|
$
|
(53
|
)
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
1,499
|
|
Comprehensive
income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
212
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
212
|
|
OCI
- gain resulting from unfunded pension and postretirement obligation (net
of tax of $7)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Unrealized
gain from hedging activities (net of tax of $7)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Total
comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
233
|
|
Dividends
on common stock ($1.48 per share)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
Benefit,
stock compensation, dividend reinvestment and stock purchase
plans
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Issuance
of treasury shares
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Purchase
of treasury shares
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
Stock-based
compensation expense (net of tax of $5)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Balance
as of December 31, 2006
|
|
|
77.7
|
|
|
|
390
|
|
|
|
664
|
|
|
|
601
|
|
|
|
(32
|
)
|
|
|
(14
|
)
|
|
|
1,609
|
|
Comprehensive
income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
211
|
|
OCI
- gain resulting from unfunded pension and postretirement obligation (net
of tax of $16)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Unrealized
loss from hedging activities (net of tax of $3)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
Total
comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
230
|
|
Dividends
on common stock ($1.64 per share)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(127
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
Issuance
of treasury shares
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Purchase
of treasury shares
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(80
|
)
|
|
|
(80
|
)
|
Stock-based
compensation expense (net of tax of $3)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Balance
as of December 31, 2007
|
|
|
76.4
|
|
|
|
390
|
|
|
|
667
|
|
|
|
680
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
(63
|
)
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
Comprehensive
income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
217
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
217
|
|
OCI
- loss resulting from unfunded pension and postretirement obligation (net
of tax of $73)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
Unrealized
loss from hedging activities (net of tax of $6)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
Total
comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
Dividends
on common stock ($1.68 per share)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(128
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(124
|
)
|
Issuance
of treasury shares
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Stock-based
compensation expense (net of tax of $1)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Balance
as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
76.9
|
|
|
$
|
390
|
|
|
$
|
676
|
|
|
$
|
763
|
|
|
$
|
(134
|
)
|
|
$
|
(43
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,652
|
|
See
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements.
|
AGL
Resources Inc.
|
|
Years
ended December 31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Cash
flows from operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
211
|
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
Adjustments
to reconcile net income to net cash flow provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
133
|
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Change
in energy marketing and risk management assets and
liabilities
|
|
|
(129
|
)
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
(112
|
)
|
Changes
in certain assets and liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade
payables
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
(35
|
)
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
Accrued
expenses
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
15
|
|
Energy
marketing receivables and energy marketing trade payables,
net
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(95
|
)
|
Gas,
unbilled and other receivables
|
|
|
(65
|
)
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
170
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(112
|
)
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
(54
|
)
|
Other
– net
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
Net
cash flow provided by operating activities
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
377
|
|
|
|
351
|
|
Cash
flows from investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures
for property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(372
|
)
|
|
|
(259
|
)
|
|
|
(253
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Net
cash flow used in investing activities
|
|
|
(372
|
)
|
|
|
(253
|
)
|
|
|
(248
|
)
|
Cash
flows from financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
payments and borrowings of short-term debt
|
|
|
286
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Issuances
of variable rate gas facility revenue bonds
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Issuance
of treasury shares
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
Distribution
to minority interest
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
Dividends
paid on common shares
|
|
|
(124
|
)
|
|
|
(123
|
)
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
Payments
of gas facility revenue bonds
|
|
|
(161
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Issuances
of senior notes
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
175
|
|
Payments
of medium-term notes
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Payments
of trust preferred securities
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(75
|
)
|
|
|
(150
|
)
|
Purchase
of treasury shares
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(80
|
)
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
8
|
|
Net
cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
(122
|
)
|
|
|
(118
|
)
|
Net
(decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
Cash
paid during the period for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
115
|
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
|
$
|
109
|
|
Income
taxes
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
General
AGL
Resources Inc. is an energy services holding company that conducts substantially
all its operations through its subsidiaries. Unless the context requires
otherwise, references to “we,” “us,” “our,” the “company”, or “AGL Resources”
mean consolidated AGL Resources Inc. and its subsidiaries. We have prepared the
accompanying consolidated financial statements under the rules of the SEC. For a
glossary of key terms
and
referenced accounting standards
, see pages 4 and
5.
Basis
of Presentation
Our
consolidated financial statements as of and for the period ended December 31,
2008, include our accounts, the accounts of our majority-owned and controlled
subsidiaries and the accounts of variable interest entities for which we are the
primary beneficiary. This means that our accounts are combined with the
subsidiaries’ accounts. We have eliminated any intercompany profits and
transactions in consolidation; however, we have not eliminated intercompany
profits when such amounts are probable of recovery under the affiliates’ rate
regulation process. Certain amounts from prior periods have been reclassified
and revised to conform to the current period presentation.
We
currently own a noncontrolling 70% financial interest in SouthStar and Piedmont
owns the remaining 30%. Our 70% interest is noncontrolling because all
significant management decisions require approval by both owners. We record the
earnings allocated to Piedmont as a minority interest in our consolidated
statements of income and we record Piedmont’s portion of SouthStar’s capital as
a minority interest in our consolidated balance sheets.
We are
the primary beneficiary of SouthStar’s activities and have determined that
SouthStar is a variable interest entity as defined by FIN 46 revised in December
2003, FIN 46R. We determined that SouthStar was a variable interest entity
because our equal voting rights with Piedmont are not proportional to our
economic obligation to absorb 75% of any losses or residual returns from
SouthStar, except those losses and returns related to customers in Ohio and
Florida. Earnings related to SouthStar’s customers in Ohio and Florida are
allocated 70% to us and 30% to Piedmont. The nature of restrictions on
SouthStar’s assets are immaterial. The primary risks associated with SouthStar
include weather, government regulation, competition, market risk, natural gas
prices, economic conditions, inflation and bad debt. See
Note 9
for income statement, balance sheet and
capital expenditure information related to the retail energy operations segment.
In addition, SouthStar obtains substantially all its transportation capacity for
delivery of natural gas through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Atlanta Gas
Light.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Our cash
and cash equivalents consist primarily of cash on deposit, money market accounts
and certificates of deposit with original maturities of three months or
less.
Receivables
and Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts
Our
receivables consist of natural gas sales and transportation services billed to
residential, commercial, industrial and other customers. We bill customers
monthly, and accounts receivable are due within 30 days. For the majority of our
receivables, we establish an allowance for doubtful accounts based on our
collection experience and other factors. On certain other receivables where we
are aware of a specific customer’s inability or reluctance to pay, we record an
allowance for doubtful accounts against amounts due to reduce the net receivable
balance to the amount we reasonably expect to collect. However, if circumstances
change, our estimate of the recoverability of accounts receivable could be
different. Circumstances that could affect our estimates include, but are not
limited to, customer credit issues, the level of natural gas prices, customer
deposits and general economic conditions. We write-off accounts once we deem
them to be uncollectible.
Inventories
For our
distribution operations subsidiaries, we record natural gas stored underground
at WACOG. For Sequent and SouthStar, we account for natural gas inventory at the
lower of WACOG or market price.
Sequent
and SouthStar evaluate the average cost of their natural gas inventories against
market prices to determine whether any declines in market prices below the WACOG
are other than temporary. For any declines considered to be other than
temporary, adjustments are recorded to reduce the weighted average cost of the
natural gas inventory to market price. Consequently, as a result of declining
natural gas prices, Sequent recorded LOCOM adjustments against cost of gas to
reduce the value of its inventories to market value of $40 million in 2008, $4
million in 2007 and $43 million in 2006. SouthStar recorded LOCOM adjustments of
$24 million in 2008 and $6 million in 2006, but was not required to make LOCOM
adjustments in 2007.
In
Georgia’s competitive environment, Marketers including SouthStar, our marketing
subsidiary, began selling natural gas in 1998 to firm end-use customers at
market-based prices. Part of the unbundling process, which resulted from
deregulation that provides for this competitive environment, is the assignment
to Marketers of certain pipeline services that Atlanta Gas Light has under
contract. Atlanta Gas Light assigns, on a monthly basis, the majority of the
pipeline storage services that it has under contract to Marketers, along with a
corresponding amount of inventory.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
A summary
of our PP&E by classification as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 is provided
in the following table.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Transmission
and distribution
|
|
$
|
4,344
|
|
|
$
|
4,193
|
|
Storage
|
|
|
290
|
|
|
|
285
|
|
Other
|
|
|
543
|
|
|
|
509
|
|
Construction
work in progress
|
|
|
323
|
|
|
|
190
|
|
Total
gross PP&E
|
|
|
5,500
|
|
|
|
5,177
|
|
Accumulated
depreciation
|
|
|
(1,684
|
)
|
|
|
(1,611
|
)
|
Total
net PP&E
|
|
$
|
3,816
|
|
|
$
|
3,566
|
|
Distribution
Operations
PP&E expenditures consist of property and equipment that
is in use, being held for future use and under construction. We report PP&E
at its original cost, which includes:
·
|
construction
overhead costs
|
·
|
an
allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) which represents the
estimated cost of funds, from both debt and equity sources, used to
finance the construction of major projects and is capitalized in rate base
for ratemaking purposes when the completed projects are placed in
service
|
We charge
property retired or otherwise disposed of to accumulated depreciation since such
costs are recovered in rates.
Retail Energy
Operations, Wholesale Services, Energy Investments and Corporate
PP&E
expenditures include property that is in use and under construction, and we
report it at cost. We record a gain or loss for retired or otherwise disposed-of
property. Natural gas in storage at Jefferson Island that is retained as pad gas
(volumes of non-working natural gas used to maintain the operational integrity
of the cavern facility) is classified as non-depreciable property, plant and
equipment and is valued at cost.
Depreciation
Expense
We
compute depreciation expense for distribution operations by applying composite,
straight-line rates (approved by the state regulatory agencies) to the
investment in depreciable property. The composite straight-line depreciation
rate for depreciable property -- excluding transportation equipment for Atlanta
Gas Light, Virginia Natural Gas and Chattanooga Gas -- was approximately 2.5%
during 2008, 2007 and 2006. The composite, straight-line rate for Elizabethtown
Gas, Florida City Gas and Elkton Gas was approximately 3.3 % for 2008, 3.2%
during 2007 and 3.0% during 2006. We depreciate transportation equipment on a
straight-line basis over a period of 5 to 10 years. We compute depreciation
expense for other segments on a straight-line basis up to 35 years based on the
useful life of the asset.
AFUDC
Four of
our utilities are authorized by applicable state regulatory agencies or
legislatures to record the cost of debt and equity funds as part of the cost of
construction projects in our consolidated balance sheets and as AFUDC of $8
million in 2008, $4 million in 2007 and $5 million in 2006 within in the
statements of consolidated income. The capital expenditures of our two other
utilities do not qualify for AFUDC treatment. More information on our authorized
AFUDC rates is provided in the following table.
|
|
Authorized
AFUDC rate
|
|
Atlanta
Gas Light
|
|
|
8.53
|
%
|
Chattanooga
Gas
(1)
|
|
|
7.89
|
%
|
Elizabethtown
Gas
(2)
|
|
|
2.84
|
%
|
Virginia Natural Gas
(3)
|
|
|
8.91
|
%
|
(1)
|
Prior
to 2007, the authorized rate was
7.43%.
|
(2)
|
Variable
rate as of December 31, 2008 and is determined by FERC method of AFUDC
accounting.
|
(3)
|
Approved
only for Hampton Roads construction
project.
|
Goodwill
We have
included $418 million of goodwill in our consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2008, which consists of:
Date
|
Acquisition
|
|
Goodwill
amount
|
|
2004
|
NUI
|
|
$
|
227
|
|
2004
|
Jefferson
Island
|
|
|
14
|
|
2000
|
Virginia
Natural Gas
|
|
|
170
|
|
1998
|
Chattanooga
Gas
|
|
|
7
|
|
SFAS 142
requires us to perform an annual goodwill impairment test at a reporting unit
level which generally equates to our operating segments as discussed in
Note
9
“Segment Information.” We performed this annual test as of our fiscal year-end
or December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 and did not recognize any impairment
charges. We also assess goodwill for impairment if events or changes in
circumstances may indicate an impairment of goodwill exists. When such events or
circumstances are present, we assess the recoverability of long-lived assets by
determining whether the carrying value will be recovered through the expected
future cash flows. In the event the sum of the expected future cash flows
resulting from the use of the asset is less than the carrying value of the
asset, we record an impairment loss equal to the excess of the asset’s carrying
value over its fair value. We conduct this assessment principally through a
review of our market capitalization relative to our net book value, financial
results, changes in state and federal legislation and regulation, regulatory and
legal proceedings and the periodic regulatory filings for our regulated
utilities.
Taxes
The
reporting of our assets and liabilities for financial accounting purposes
differs from the reporting for income tax purposes. The principal differences
between net income and taxable income relate to the timing of deductions,
primarily due to the benefits of tax depreciation since we generally depreciate
assets for tax purposes over a shorter period of time than for book purposes.
The determination of our provision for income taxes requires significant
judgment, the use of estimates, and the interpretation and application of
complex tax laws. Significant judgment is required in assessing the timing and
amounts of deductible and taxable items. We report the tax effects of
depreciation and other differences in those items as deferred income tax assets
or liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets in accordance with SFAS 109
and FIN 48. Investment tax credits of approximately $14 million previously
deducted for income tax purposes for Atlanta Gas Light, Elizabethtown Gas,
Florida City Gas and Elkton Gas have been deferred for financial accounting
purposes and are being amortized as credits to income over the estimated lives
of the related properties in accordance with regulatory
requirements.
We do not
collect income taxes from our customers on behalf of governmental authorities.
We collect and remit various taxes on behalf of various governmental
authorities. We record these amounts in our consolidated balance sheets except
taxes in the state of Florida which we are required to include in revenues and
operating expenses. These Florida related taxes are not material for any periods
presented.
Revenues
Distribution
operations
We record revenues when services are provided to customers.
Those revenues are based on rates approved by the state regulatory commissions
of our utilities.
As
required by the Georgia Commission, in July 1998, Atlanta Gas Light began
billing Marketers in equal monthly installments for each residential, commercial
and industrial customer’s distribution costs. As required by the Georgia
Commission, effective February 1, 2001, Atlanta Gas Light implemented a seasonal
rate design for the calculation of each residential customer’s annual
straight-fixed-variable (SFV) capacity charge, which is billed to Marketers and
reflects the historic volumetric usage pattern for the entire residential class.
Generally, this change results in residential customers being billed by
Marketers for a higher capacity charge in the winter months and a lower charge
in the summer months. This requirement has an operating cash flow impact but
does not change revenue recognition. As a result, Atlanta Gas Light continues to
recognize its residential SFV capacity revenues for financial reporting purposes
in equal monthly installments.
Any
difference between the billings under the seasonal rate design and the SFV
revenue recognized is deferred and reconciled to actual billings on an annual
basis. Atlanta Gas Light had unrecovered seasonal rates of approximately $11
million as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 (included as current assets in the
consolidated balance sheets) related to the difference between the billings
under the seasonal rate design and the SFV revenue recognized.
The
Elizabethtown Gas, Virginia Natural Gas, Florida City Gas, Chattanooga Gas and
Elkton Gas rate structures include volumetric rate designs that allow recovery
of costs through gas usage. Revenues from sales and transportation services are
recognized in the same period in which the related volumes are delivered to
customers. Revenues from residential and certain commercial and industrial
customers are recognized on the basis of scheduled meter readings. In addition,
revenues are recorded for estimated deliveries of gas not yet billed to these
customers, from the last meter reading date to the end of the accounting period.
These are included in the consolidated balance sheets as unbilled revenue. For
other commercial and industrial customers and all wholesale customers, revenues
are based on actual deliveries to the end of the period.
The
tariffs for Elizabethtown Gas, Virginia Natural Gas and Chattanooga Gas contain
WNA’s that partially mitigate the impact of unusually cold or warm weather on
customer billings and operating margin. The WNA’s purpose is to reduce the
effect of weather on customer bills by reducing bills when winter weather is
colder than normal and increasing bills when weather is warmer than
normal.
Retail energy
operations
We record retail energy operations’ revenues when services are
provided to customers. Revenues from sales and transportation services are
recognized in the same period in which the related volumes are delivered to
customers. Sales revenues from residential and certain commercial and industrial
customers are recognized on the basis of scheduled meter readings. In addition,
revenues are recorded for estimated deliveries of gas not yet billed to these
customers, from the most recent meter reading date to the end of the accounting
period. These are included in the consolidated balance sheets as unbilled
revenue. For other commercial and industrial customers and all wholesale
customers, revenues are based on actual deliveries to the end of the
period.
Wholesale
services
We record wholesale services’ revenues when services are
provided to customers. Profits from sales between segments are eliminated in the
corporate segment and are recognized as goods or services sold to end-use
customers. Transactions that qualify as derivatives under SFAS 133 are recorded
at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in earnings in the period of
change and characterized as unrealized gains or losses.
Energy
investments
We record operating revenues at Jefferson Island in
the period in which actual volumes are transported and storage services are
provided. The majority of our storage services are covered under medium to
long-term contracts at fixed market rates.
We record
operating revenues at AGL Networks from leases of dark fiber pursuant to
indefeasible rights-of-use (IRU) agreements as services are provided. Dark fiber
IRU agreements generally require the customer to make a down payment upon
execution of the agreement; however in some cases AGL Networks receives up to
the entire lease payment at the inception of the lease and recognizes ratably
over the lease term. AGL Networks had deferred revenue in our consolidated
balance sheet of $33 million at December 31, 2008 and $38 million at December
31, 2007. In addition, AGL Networks recognizes sales revenues upon the execution
of certain sales-type agreements for dark fiber when the agreements provide for
the transfer of legal title to the dark fiber to the customer at the end of the
agreement’s term. This sales-type accounting treatment is in accordance with
EITF 00-11 and SFAS 66, which provides that such transactions meet the criteria
for sales-type lease accounting if the agreement obligates the lessor to convey
ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee by the end of the lease
term.
Cost
of gas
Excluding
Atlanta Gas Light, we charge our utility customers for natural gas consumed
using natural gas cost recovery mechanisms set by the state regulatory agencies.
Under the these mechanisms, we defer (that is, include as a current asset or
liability in the consolidated balance sheets and exclude from the statements of
consolidated income) the difference between the actual cost of gas and what is
collected from or billed to customers in a given period. The deferred amount is
either billed or refunded to our customers prospectively through adjustments to
the commodity rate.
Our
retail energy operations customers are charged for natural gas consumed. We also
include within our cost of gas amounts for fuel and lost and unaccounted for
gas, adjustments to reduce the value of our inventories to market value and for
gains and losses associated with derivatives.
Comprehensive
Income
Our
comprehensive income includes net income plus OCI, which includes other gains
and losses affecting shareholders’ equity that GAAP excludes from net income.
Such items consist primarily of unrealized gains and losses on certain
derivatives designated as cash flow hedges and overfunded or unfunded pension
obligation adjustments. The following table illustrates our OCI activity during
the last three years.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Cash
flow hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
derivative unrealized (losses) gains arising during the period
(net of $2, $2 and $7 in
taxes)
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
Less
reclassification of realized gains included in net income
(net of $4, $5 and $1 in
taxes)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
(Unfunded)
over funded pension obligation
(net of $73, $16 and $7 in
taxes)
|
|
|
(111
|
)
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(121
|
)
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
Earnings
Per Common Share
We
compute basic earnings per common share by dividing our income available to
common shareholders by the daily weighted average number of common shares
outstanding daily. Diluted earnings per common share reflect the potential
reduction in earnings per common share that could occur when potentially
dilutive common shares are added to common shares outstanding.
We derive
our potentially dilutive common shares by calculating the number of shares
issuable under restricted stock, restricted stock units and stock options. The
future issuance of shares underlying the restricted stock and restricted share
units depends on the satisfaction of certain performance criteria. The future
issuance of shares underlying the outstanding stock options depends on whether
the exercise prices of the stock options are less than the average market price
of the common shares for the respective periods. The following table shows the
calculation of our diluted earnings per share for the periods presented
if performance units currently earned under the plan ultimately vest and if
stock options currently exercisable at prices below the average market prices
are exercised.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Denominator
for basic earnings per share
(1)
|
|
|
76.3
|
|
|
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
77.6
|
|
Assumed
exercise of potential common shares
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
Denominator
for diluted earnings per share
|
|
|
76.6
|
|
|
|
77.4
|
|
|
|
78.0
|
|
(1)
|
Daily
weighted average shares
outstanding.
|
The
following table contains the weighted average shares attributable to outstanding
stock options that were excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per
share because their effect would have been anti-dilutive, as the exercise prices
were greater than the average market price:
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Twelve
months ended (1)
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
(1)
|
0.0
values represent amounts less than 0.1
million.
|
The
increase in the number of shares that were excluded from the computation is the
result of a significant decline in the market value of our common shares at
December 31, 2008 as compared to December 31, 2007 and 2006.
Regulatory Assets and
Liabilities
We have
recorded regulatory assets and liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets in
accordance with SFAS 71. Our regulatory assets and liabilities, and associated
liabilities for our unrecovered PRP costs, unrecovered ERC and the associated
assets and liabilities for our Elizabethtown Gas hedging program, are summarized
in the following table.
|
|
December
31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Regulatory
assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecovered
PRP costs
|
|
$
|
237
|
|
|
$
|
285
|
|
Unrecovered
ERC
(1)
|
|
|
143
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
Unrecovered
postretirement benefit costs
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Unrecovered
seasonal rates
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Unrecovered
natural gas costs
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Other
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Total
regulatory assets
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
513
|
|
Associated
assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabethtown
Gas hedging program
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Total
regulatory and associated assets
|
|
$
|
474
|
|
|
$
|
517
|
|
Regulatory
liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
removal costs
|
|
$
|
178
|
|
|
$
|
169
|
|
Elizabethtown
Gas hedging program
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Unamortized
investment tax credit
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
Deferred
natural gas costs
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Regulatory
tax liability
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Other
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Total regulatory
liabilities
|
|
|
281
|
|
|
|
256
|
|
Associated
liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRP
costs
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
245
|
|
ERC
(1)
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
96
|
|
Total
associated liabilities
|
|
|
285
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
Total regulatory and associated
liabilities
|
|
$
|
566
|
|
|
$
|
597
|
|
(1)
|
For
a discussion of ERC, see
Note
7
.
|
Our
regulatory assets are recoverable through either rate riders or base rates
specifically authorized by a state regulatory commission. Base rates are
designed to provide both a recovery of cost and a return on investment during
the period rates are in effect. As such, all our regulatory assets are subject
to review by the respective state regulatory commission during any future rate
proceedings. In the event that the provisions of SFAS 71 were no longer
applicable, we would recognize a write-off of regulatory assets that
would result in a charge to net income, and be classified as an extraordinary
item. Additionally, the regulatory liabilities would not be written-off, but
would continue to be recorded as liabilities, but not as regulatory
liabilities. Although the natural gas distribution industry is becoming
increasingly competitive, our utility operations continue to recover their costs
through cost-based rates established by the state regulatory commissions. As a
result, we believe that the accounting prescribed under SFAS 71 remains
appropriate. It is also our opinion that all regulatory assets are recoverable
in future rate proceedings, and therefore we have not recorded any regulatory
assets that are recoverable but are not yet included in base rates or
contemplated in a rate rider.
All the
regulatory assets included in the preceding table are included in base rates
except for the unrecovered PRP costs, unrecovered ERC and deferred natural gas
costs, which are recovered through specific rate riders on a dollar for dollar
basis. The rate riders that authorize recovery of unrecovered PRP costs and the
deferred natural gas costs include both a recovery of costs and a return on
investment during the recovery period. We have two rate riders that authorize
the recovery of unrecovered ERC. The ERC rate rider for Atlanta Gas Light only
allows for recovery of the costs incurred and the recovery period occurs over
the five years after the expense is incurred. ERC associated with the
investigation and remediation of Elizabethtown Gas remediation sites located in
the state of New Jersey are recovered under a remediation adjustment clause and
include the carrying cost on unrecovered amounts not currently in rates.
Elizabethtown Gas’ hedging program asset and liability reflect unrealized losses
or gains that will be recovered from or passed to rate payers through the
recovery of its natural gas costs on a dollar for dollar basis, once the losses
or gains are realized. Unrecovered postretirement benefit costs are recoverable
through base rates over the next 5 to 24 years based on the remaining recovery
period as designated by the applicable state regulatory commissions. Unrecovered
seasonal rates reflect the difference between the recognition of a portion of
Atlanta Gas Light’s residential base rates revenues on a straight-line basis as
compared to the collection of the revenues over a seasonal pattern. The
unrecovered amounts are fully recoverable through base rates within one
year.
The
regulatory liabilities are refunded to ratepayers through a rate rider or base
rates. If the regulatory liability is included in base rates, the amount is
reflected as a reduction to the rate base in setting rates.
Pipeline
Replacement Program
Atlanta Gas Light
The PRP,
ordered by the Georgia Commission to be administered by Atlanta Gas Light,
requires, among other things, that Atlanta Gas Light replace all bare steel and
cast iron pipe in its system in the state of Georgia within a 10-year period
beginning October 1, 1998. Atlanta Gas Light identified, and provided notice to
the Georgia Commission of 2,312 miles of pipe to be replaced. Atlanta Gas Light
subsequently identified an additional 320 miles of pipe subject to replacement
under this program. If Atlanta Gas Light does not perform in accordance with
this order, it will be assessed certain nonperformance penalties.
The order
also provides for recovery of all prudent costs incurred in the performance of
the program, which Atlanta Gas Light has recorded as a regulatory asset. Atlanta
Gas Light will recover from end-use customers, through billings to Marketers,
the costs related to the program net of any cost savings from the program. All
such amounts will be recovered through a combination of straight-fixed-variable
rates and a pipeline replacement revenue rider. The regulatory asset has two
components:
·
|
the
costs incurred to date that have not yet been recovered through the rate
rider
|
·
|
the
future expected costs to be recovered through the rate
rider
|
On June
10, 2005, Atlanta Gas Light and the Georgia Commission entered into a Settlement
Agreement that, among other things, extends Atlanta Gas Light’s PRP by five
years to require that all replacements be completed by December 2013. The timing
of replacements was subsequently specified in an amendment to the PRP
stipulation. This amendment, which was approved by the Georgia Commission on
December 20, 2005, requires Atlanta Gas Light to replace all cast iron pipe and
70% of all bare steel pipe by December 2010. The remaining 30% of bare steel
pipe is required to be replaced by December 2013. These replacements are on
schedule.
Under the
Settlement Agreement, base rates charged to customers will remain unchanged
through April 30, 2010, but Atlanta Gas Light will recognize reduced base rate
revenues of $5 million on an annual basis through April 30, 2010. The five-year
total reduction in recognized base rate revenues of $25 million will be applied
to the allowed amount of costs incurred to replace pipe, which will reduce the
amounts recovered from customers under the PRP rider. The Settlement Agreement
also set the per customer fixed PRP rate that Atlanta Gas Light will charge at
$1.29 per customer per month from May 2005 through September 2008 and at $1.95
from October 2008 through December 2013 and includes a provision that allows for
a true-up of any over- or under-recovery of PRP revenues that may result from a
difference between PRP charges collected through fixed rates and actual PRP
revenues recognized through the remainder of the program.
The
Settlement Agreement also allows Atlanta Gas Light to recover through the PRP $4
million of the $32 million capital costs associated with its March 2005 purchase
of 250 miles of pipeline in central Georgia from Southern Natural Gas Company, a
subsidiary of El Paso Corporation. The remaining capital costs are included in
Atlanta Gas Light’s rate base and collected through base rates.
Atlanta
Gas Light has recorded a long-term regulatory asset of $196 million, which
represents the expected future collection of both expenditures already incurred
and expected future capital expenditures to be incurred through the remainder of
the program. Atlanta Gas Light has also recorded a current asset of $41 million,
which represents the expected amount to be collected from customers over the
next 12 months. The amounts recovered from the pipeline replacement revenue
rider during the last three years were:
As of
December 31, 2008, Atlanta Gas Light had recorded a current liability of $49
million representing expected program expenditures for the next 12 months and a
long-term liability of $140 million, representing expected program expenditures
starting in 2009 through the end of the program in 2013.
Atlanta
Gas Light capitalizes and depreciates the capital expenditure costs incurred
from the PRP over the life of the assets. Operation and maintenance costs are
expensed as incurred. Recoveries, which are recorded as revenue, are based on a
formula that allows Atlanta Gas Light to recover operation and maintenance costs
in excess of those included in its current base rates, depreciation expense and
an allowed rate of return on capital expenditures. In the near term, the primary
financial impact to Atlanta Gas Light from the PRP is reduced cash flow from
operating and investing activities, as the timing related to cost recovery does
not match the timing of when costs are incurred. However, Atlanta Gas Light is
allowed the recovery of carrying costs on the under-recovered balance resulting
from the timing difference.
Elizabethtown Gas
In August 2006, the New Jersey Commission issued an order adopting a
pipeline replacement cost recovery rider program for the replacement of certain
8” cast iron main pipes and any unanticipated 10”-12” cast iron main pipes
integral to the replacement of the 8” main pipes. The order allows Elizabethtown
Gas to recognize revenues under a deferred recovery mechanism for costs to
replace the pipe that exceeds a baseline amount of $3 million. Elizabethtown
Gas’ recognition of these revenues could be disallowed by the New Jersey
Commission if its return on equity exceeds the authorized rate of 10%. The term
of the stipulation was from the date of the order through December 31, 2008.
Total replacement costs through December 31, 2008 were $21 million, of which $16
million will be eligible for the deferred recovery mechanism. Revenues
recognized and deferred for recovery under the stipulation are estimated to be
approximately $2 million. All costs incurred under the program will be included
in Elizabethtown Gas’ next rate case to be filed in 2009.
Use
of Accounting Estimates
The
preparation of our financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to
make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets,
liabilities, revenues and expenses and the related disclosures of contingent
assets and liabilities. We based our estimates on historical experience and
various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the
circumstances, and we evaluate our estimates on an ongoing basis. Each of our
estimates involve complex situations requiring a high degree of judgment either
in the application and interpretation of existing literature or in the
development of estimates that impact our financial statements. The most
significant estimates include our PRP accruals, environmental liability
accruals, uncollectible accounts and other allowance for contingencies, pension
and postretirement obligations, derivative and hedging activities and provision
for income taxes. Our actual results could differ from our
estimates.
Accounting
Developments
Previously
discussed
SFAS 160
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 160, which is effective for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2008. Early adoption is prohibited. SFAS 160 will
require us to present our minority interest, now to be referred to as a
noncontrolling interest, separately within the capitalization section of our
consolidated balance sheet. We will adopt SFAS 160 as of January 1,
2009.
Recently
issued
SFAS 161
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS 161, which is effective for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2008. SFAS 161 amends the disclosure requirements
of SFAS 133 to provide an enhanced understanding of how and why derivative
instruments are used, how they are accounted for and their effect on an entity’s
financial condition, performance and cash flows. We will adopt SFAS 161
effective on January 1, 2009, which will require additional disclosures, but
will not have a financial impact to our consolidated results of operations, cash
flows or financial condition.
FSP EITF
03-6-1
The FASB issued this FSP in June 2008 and it is effective for
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. This FSP classifies unvested
share-based payment grants containing nonforfeitable rights to dividends as
participating securities that will be included in the computation of earnings
per share. As of December 31, 2008, we had approximately 145,000 restricted
shares with nonforfeitable dividend rights. We will adopt FSP EITF 03-6-1
effective on January 1, 2009.
FSP FAS
133-1
The FASB issued this FSP in September 2008 and it is effective for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. This FSP requires more detailed
disclosures about credit derivatives, including the potential adverse effects of
changes in credit risk on the financial position, financial performance and cash
flows of the sellers of the instruments. This FSP will have no financial impact
to our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. We
will adopt FSP FAS 133-1 effective on January 1, 2009.
FSP FAS
157-3
The FASB issued this FSP in October 2008 and it is effective upon
issuance including prior periods for which financial statements have not been
issued. This FSP clarifies the application of SFAS 157 in an inactive market,
including; how internal assumptions should be considered when measuring fair
value, how observable market information in a market that is not active should
be considered and how the use of market quotes should be used when assessing
observable and unobservable data. We adopted this FSP as of September 30, 2008,
it had no financial impact to our consolidated results of operations, cash flows
or financial condition.
FSP FAS 140-4 and
FIN 46R-8
The FASB issued this FSP in December 2008 and it is effective
for the first reporting period ending after December 15, 2008. This FSP requires
additional disclosures related to variable interest entities in accordance with
SFAS 140 and FIN 46R. These disclosures include significant judgments and
assumptions, restrictions on assets, risks and the affects on financial
position, financial performance and cash flows. We adopted this FSP as of
December 31, 2008, it had no financial impact to our consolidated results of
operations, cash flows or financial condition.
Netting
of Cash Collateral and Derivative Assets and Liabilities under Master Netting
Arrangements
We
maintain accounts with brokers to facilitate financial derivative transactions
in support of our energy marketing and risk management activities. Based on the
value of our positions in these accounts and the associated margin requirements,
we may be required to deposit cash into these broker accounts.
On
January 1, 2008, we adopted FIN 39-1, which required that we offset cash
collateral held in these broker accounts on our condensed consolidated balance
sheets with the associated fair value of the instruments in the accounts. Prior
to the adoption of FIN 39-1, we presented such cash collateral on a gross basis
within other current assets and liabilities on our condensed consolidated
balance sheets. Our cash collateral amounts are provided in the following
table.
|
|
As
of December 31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Right
to reclaim cash collateral
|
|
$
|
128
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
Obligations
to return cash collateral
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
Total
cash collateral
|
|
$
|
124
|
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
Fair
value measurements
In
September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS 157, which establishes a framework for
measuring fair value and requires expanded disclosures regarding fair value
measurements. SFAS 157 does not require any new fair value measurements;
however, it eliminates inconsistencies in the guidance provided in previous
accounting pronouncements. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents,
receivables, accounts payable, other current liabilities and accrued interest
approximate fair value. The following table shows the carrying amounts and fair
values of our long-term debt including any current portions included in our
condensed consolidated balance sheets.
In
millions
|
|
Carrying
amount
|
|
|
Estimated
fair value
|
|
As
of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
1,675
|
|
|
$
|
1,647
|
|
As
of December 31, 2007
|
|
|
1,675
|
|
|
|
1,710
|
|
We
estimate the fair value of our long-term debt using a discounted cash flow
technique that incorporates a market interest yield curve with adjustments for
duration, optionality and risk profile. In determining the market interest
yield curve, we considered our currently assigned ratings for unsecured debt of
BBB+ by S&P, Baa1 by Moody’s and A- by Fitch.
SFAS 157
was effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after
November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. In December
2007, the FASB provided a one-year deferral of SFAS 157 for nonfinancial assets
and nonfinancial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at
fair value on a recurring basis, at least annually. We adopted SFAS 157 on
January 1, 2008, for our financial assets and liabilities, which primarily
consist of derivatives we record in accordance with SFAS 133. The adoption of
SFAS 157 primarily impacts our disclosures and did not have a material impact on
our condensed consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial
condition. We will adopt SFAS 157 for our nonfinancial assets and liabilities on
January 1, 2009, and are currently evaluating the impact to our condensed
consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial
condition.
Level
1
Quoted
prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of
the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the
asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing
information on an ongoing basis. Our Level 1 items consist of financial
instruments with exchange-traded derivatives.
Level 2
Pricing
inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets included in level 1, which
are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. Level 2
includes those financial and commodity instruments that are valued using
valuation methodologies. These methodologies are primarily industry-standard
methodologies that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices
for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and
contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant
economic measures. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the
marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from
observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are
executed in the marketplace. We obtain market price data from multiple sources
in order to value some of our Level 2 transactions and this data is
representative of transactions that occurred in the market place. As we
aggregate our disclosures by counterparty, the underlying transactions for a
given counterparty may be a combination of exchange-traded derivatives and
values based on other sources. Instruments in this category include shorter
tenor exchange-traded and non-exchange-traded derivatives such as OTC forwards
and options.
Level 3
Pricing
inputs include significant inputs that are generally less observable from
objective sources. These inputs may be used with internally developed
methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. Level 3
instruments include those that may be more structured or otherwise tailored to
customers’ needs. We do not have any material assets or liabilities classified
as level 3.
The
following table sets forth, by level within the fair value hierarchy, our
financial assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value on a
recurring basis as of December 31, 2008. As required by SFAS 157, financial
assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest
level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Our assessment
of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires
judgment, and may affect the valuation of fair value assets and liabilities and
their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.
|
|
Recurring
fair value measurements as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Quoted
prices in active markets (Level 1)
|
|
|
Significant
other observable inputs
(Level
2)
|
|
|
Significant
unobservable inputs
(Level
3)
|
|
|
Netting
of cash collateral
|
|
|
Total
carrying value
|
|
Assets:
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
at wholesale services
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
154
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
206
|
|
Derivatives
at distribution operations
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
Derivatives
at retail energy operations
(3)
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Total
assets
|
|
$
|
52
|
|
|
$
|
154
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
241
|
|
Liabilities:
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives
at wholesale services
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
27
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
(62
|
)
|
|
$
|
27
|
|
Derivatives
at distribution operations
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
Derivatives
at retail energy operations
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
Total
liabilities
|
|
$
|
117
|
|
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
(89
|
)
|
|
$
|
56
|
|
(1)
Includes
$203 million of current assets and $38 million of long-term assets
reflected within our consolidated balance sheet.
(2)
Includes
$50 million of current liabilities and $6 million of long-term liabilities
reflected within our consolidated balance sheet.
(3)
$4
million premium associated with weather derivatives has been excluded as
they are based on intrinsic value, not fair value.
|
|
The
determination of the fair values above incorporates various factors required
under SFAS 157. These factors include not only the credit standing of the
counterparties involved and the impact of credit enhancements (such as cash
deposits, letters of credit and priority interests), but also the impact of our
nonperformance risk on our liabilities.
Derivatives
at distribution operations relate to Elizabethtown Gas and are utilized in
accordance with a directive from the New Jersey Commission to create a program
to hedge the impact of market fluctuations in natural gas prices. These
derivative products are accounted for at fair value each reporting period. In
accordance with regulatory requirements, realized gains and losses related to
these derivatives are reflected in purchased gas costs and ultimately included
in billings to customers. Unrealized gains and losses are reflected as a
regulatory asset or liability, as appropriate, in our condensed consolidated
balance sheets.
Sequent’s
and SouthStar’s derivatives include exchange-traded and OTC derivative
contracts. Exchange-traded derivative contracts, which include futures and
exchange-traded options, are generally based on unadjusted quoted prices in
active markets and are classified within level 1. Some exchange-traded
derivatives are valued using broker or dealer quotation services, or market
transactions in either the listed or OTC markets, which are classified within
level 2.
At the
beginning of 2008, we had a notional principal amount of $100 million of
interest rate swap agreements associated with our senior notes. In March 2008,
we terminated these interest rate swap agreements. We received a payment of $2
million, which included accrued interest and the fair value of the interest rate
swap agreements at the termination date. The payment was recorded as deferred
income and classified as a liability in our consolidated balance sheets. The
amount will be amortized through January 2011, the remaining life of the
associated senior notes. The following table sets forth a reconciliation of the
termination of our interest rate swaps, classified as level 3 in the fair value
hierarchy.
In
millions
|
|
Year
ended December 31, 2008
|
|
Balance
as of January 1, 2008
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
Realized
and unrealized gains
|
|
|
-
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
2
|
|
Transfers
in or out of level 3
|
|
|
-
|
|
Balance
as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Change
in unrealized gains (losses) relating to instruments held as of December
31, 2008
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Transfers
in or out of level 3 represent existing assets or liabilities that were either
previously categorized as a higher level for which the methodology inputs became
unobservable or assets and liabilities that were previously classified as level
3 for which the lowest significant input became observable during the
period.
Risk
Management
Our risk
management activities are monitored by our Risk Management Committee (RMC),
which consists of members of senior management. The RMC and is charged with
reviewing and enforcing our risk management activities. Our risk management
policies limit the use of derivative financial instruments and physical
transactions within predefined risk tolerances associated with pre-existing or
anticipated physical natural gas sales and purchases and system use and storage.
We use the following derivative financial instruments and physical transactions
to manage commodity price, interest rate, weather, fuel price and foreign
currency risks:
·
|
weather
derivative contracts
|
·
|
storage
and transportation capacity
transactions
|
·
|
foreign
currency forward contracts
|
Interest
Rate Swaps
To
maintain an effective capital structure, our policy is to borrow funds using a
mix of fixed-rate and variable-rate debt. We entered into interest rate swap
agreements for the purpose of managing the appropriate mix of risk associated
with our fixed-rate and variable-rate debt obligations. We designated these
interest rate swaps as fair value hedges in accordance with SFAS 133. We record
the gain or loss on fair value hedges in earnings in the period of change,
together with the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item attributable to the
interest rate risk being hedged.
At the
beginning of 2008, we had a notional principal amount of $100 million of these
interest rate swap agreements associated with a portion of our senior notes. We
terminated these agreements in March 2008. These swaps had variable rates based
on an interest rate equal to the LIBOR plus a 3.4% spread. The floating rate for
our interest rate swap as of December 31, 2007 was 8.8% and was 9.0% as of
December 31, 2006. The fair value of our interest rate swaps were reflected as a
long-term liability of $2 million at December 31, 2007. For more information on
our senior notes, see Note 6.
Commodity-related
Derivative Instruments
All
activities associated with price risk management activities and derivative
instruments are included as a component of cash flows from operating activities
in our consolidated statements of cash flows. Our derivatives not designated as
hedges under SFAS 133, included within operating cash flows as a source (use) of
cash was $(129) million in 2008, $74 million in 2007, and $(112) million in
2006.
Elizabethtown Gas
In accordance with a directive from the New Jersey Commission,
Elizabethtown Gas enters into derivative transactions to hedge the impact of
market fluctuations in natural gas prices. Pursuant to SFAS 133, such derivative
transactions are marked to market each reporting period. In accordance with
regulatory requirements, realized gains and losses related to these derivatives
are reflected in purchased gas costs and ultimately included in billings to
customers. As of December 31, 2008, Elizabethtown Gas had entered into OTC swap
contracts to purchase approximately 11 Bcf of natural gas. Approximately 57% of
these contracts have durations of one year or less, and none of these contracts
extends beyond January 2011. The fair values of these derivative instruments
were reflected as a current asset and liability of $23 million at December 31,
2008 and $4 million at December 31, 2007. For more information on our regulatory
assets and liabilities see Note 1.
SouthStar
Commodity-related
derivative financial instruments (futures, options and swaps) are used by
SouthStar to manage exposures arising from changing commodity prices.
SouthStar’s objective for holding these derivatives is to utilize the most
effective method to reduce or eliminate the impact of this exposure. We have
designated a portion of SouthStar’s derivative transactions as cash flow hedges
under SFAS 133. We record derivative gains or losses arising from cash flow
hedges in OCI and reclassify them into earnings in the same period as the
settlement of the underlying hedged item. We record any hedge ineffectiveness,
defined as when the gains or losses on the hedging instrument do not offset and
are greater than the losses or gains on the hedged item, in cost of gas in our
statement of consolidated income in the period in which it occurs. SouthStar
currently has minimal hedge ineffectiveness. We have not designated the
remainder of SouthStar’s derivative instruments as hedges under SFAS 133 and,
accordingly, we record changes in their fair value as cost of gas in our
statements of consolidated income in the period of change.
At
December 31, 2008, the fair values of these derivatives were reflected in our
consolidated financial statements as a current asset of $11 million, a long-term
asset of $5 million and a current liability of $2 million representing a net
position of 28 Bcf. This includes a $4 million current
asset associated with a premium for weather derivatives.
SouthStar
also enters into both exchange and OTC derivative transactions to hedge
commodity price risk. Credit risk is mitigated for exchange transactions through
the backing of the NYMEX member firms. For OTC transactions, SouthStar utilizes
master netting arrangements to reduce overall credit risk. As of December 31,
2008, SouthStar’s maximum exposure to any single OTC counterparty was $8
million.
Sequent
We are exposed to risks
associated with changes in the market price of natural gas. Sequent uses
derivative financial instruments to reduce our exposure to the risk of changes
in the prices of natural gas. The fair value of these derivative financial
instruments reflects the estimated amounts that we would receive or pay to
terminate or close the contracts at the reporting date, taking into account the
current unrealized gains or losses on open contracts. We use external market
quotes and indices to value substantially all the financial instruments we
use.
We
mitigate substantially all the commodity price risk associated with Sequent’s
natural gas portfolio by locking in the economic margin at the time we enter
into natural gas purchase transactions for our stored natural gas. We purchase
natural gas for storage when the difference in the current market price we pay
to buy and transport natural gas plus the cost to store the natural gas is less
than the market price we can receive in the future, resulting in a positive net
operating margin. We use NYMEX futures contracts and other OTC derivatives to
sell natural gas at that future price to substantially lock in the operating
margin we will ultimately realize when the stored natural gas is actually sold.
These futures contracts meet the definition of derivatives under SFAS 133 and
are recorded at fair value and marked to market in our consolidated balance
sheets, with changes in fair value recorded in earnings in the period of change.
The purchase, transportation, storage and sale of natural gas are accounted for
on a weighted average cost or accrual basis, as appropriate rather than on the
mark-to-market basis we utilize for the derivatives used to mitigate the
commodity price risk associated with our storage portfolio. This difference in
accounting can result in volatility in our reported earnings, even though the
economic margin is essentially unchanged from the date the transactions were
consummated.
At
December 31, 2008, Sequent’s commodity-related derivative financial instruments
represented purchases (long) of 819 Bcf and sales (short) of 688 Bcf with
approximately 92% of purchase instruments and 94% of the sales instruments are
scheduled to mature in less than 2 years and the remaining 8% and 6%,
respectively, in 3 to 9 years. At December 31, 2008, the fair values of these
derivatives were reflected in our consolidated financial statements as an asset
of $206 million and a liability of $27 million.
The
changes in fair value of Sequent’s derivative instruments utilized in its energy
marketing and risk management activities and contract settlements increased the
net fair value of its contracts outstanding by $25 million during 2008, reduced
net fair value by $62 million during 2007 and increased net fair value by $132
million during 2006.
Weather
Derivatives
In 2008
and 2007, SouthStar entered into weather derivative contracts as economic hedges
of operating margins in the event of warmer-than-normal and colder-than-normal
weather in the heating season, primarily from November through March. SouthStar
accounts for these contracts using the intrinsic value method under the
guidelines of EITF 99-02. SouthStar recorded current assets for this hedging
activity of $4 million at December 31, 2008 and $5 million at December 31,
2007.
Concentration
of Credit Risk
Atlanta Gas
Light
Concentration of credit
risk occurs at Atlanta Gas Light for amounts billed for services and other costs
to its customers, which consist of 11 Marketers in Georgia. The credit risk
exposure to Marketers varies seasonally, with the lowest exposure in the nonpeak
summer months and the highest exposure in the peak winter months. Marketers are
responsible for the retail sale of natural gas to end-use customers in Georgia.
These retail functions include customer service, billing, collections, and the
purchase and sale of natural gas. Atlanta Gas Light’s tariff allows it to obtain
security support in an amount equal to no less than two times a Marketer’s
highest month’s estimated bill from Atlanta Gas Light.
Wholesale
Services
Sequent has a
concentration of credit risk for services it provides to marketers and to
utility and industrial counterparties. This credit risk is measured by 30-day
receivable exposure plus forward exposure, which is generally concentrated in 20
of its counterparties. Sequent evaluates the credit risk of its counterparties
using a S&P equivalent credit rating, which is determined by a process of
converting the lower of the S&P or Moody’s rating to an internal rating
ranging from 9.00 to 1.00, with 9.00 being equivalent to AAA/Aaa by S&P and
Moody’s and 1.00 being equivalent to D or Default by S&P and Moody’s. For a
customer without an external rating, Sequent assigns an internal rating based on
Sequent’s analysis of the strength of its financial ratios. At December 31,
2008, Sequent’s top 20 counterparties represented approximately 63% of the total
credit exposure of $505 million, derived by adding together the top 20
counterparties’ exposures and dividing by the total of Sequent’s counterparties’
exposures. Sequent’s counterparties or the counterparties’ guarantors had a
weighted average S&P equivalent rating of A- at December 31,
2008.
The
weighted average credit rating is obtained by multiplying each customer’s
assigned internal rating by its credit exposure and then adding the individual
results for all counterparties. That total is divided by the aggregate total
exposure. This numeric value is converted to an S&P equivalent.
Sequent
has established credit policies to determine and monitor the creditworthiness of
counterparties, including requirements for posting of collateral or other credit
security, as well as the quality of pledged collateral. Collateral or credit
security is most often in the form of cash or letters of credit from an
investment-grade financial institution, but may also include cash or U.S.
Government Securities held by a trustee. When Sequent is engaged in more than
one outstanding derivative transaction with the same counterparty and it also
has a legally enforceable netting agreement with that counterparty, the “net”
mark-to-market exposure represents the netting of the positive and negative
exposures with that counterparty and a reasonable measure of Sequent’s credit
risk. Sequent also uses other netting agreements with certain counterparties
with which it conducts significant transactions.
Oversight
of Plans
The
Retirement Plan Investment Committee (the Committee) appointed by our Board of
Directors is responsible for overseeing the investments of the retirement plans.
Further, we have an Investment Policy (the Policy) for the retirement and
postretirement benefit plans that aims to preserve these plans’ capital and
maximize investment earnings in excess of inflation within acceptable levels of
capital market volatility. To accomplish this goal, the retirement and
postretirement benefit plans’ assets are actively managed to optimize long-term
return while maintaining a high standard of portfolio quality and proper
diversification.
The
Policy’s risk management strategy establishes a maximum tolerance for risk in
terms of volatility to be measured at 75% of the volatility experienced by the
S&P 500. We will continue to diversify retirement plan investments to
minimize the risk of large losses in a single asset class. The Policy’s
permissible investments include domestic and international equities (including
convertible securities and mutual funds), domestic and international fixed
income (corporate and U.S. government obligations), cash and cash equivalents
and other suitable investments. The asset mix of these permissible investments
is maintained within the Policy’s target allocations as included in the
preceding tables, but the Committee can vary allocations between various classes
or investment managers in order to improve investment results.
Equity
market performance and corporate bond rates have a significant effect on our
reported unfunded ABO, as the primary factors that drive the value of our
unfunded ABO are the assumed discount rate and the actual return on plan assets.
Additionally, equity market performance has a significant effect on our
market-related value of plan assets (MRVPA), which is a calculated value and
differs from the actual market value of plan assets. The MRVPA recognizes the
difference between the actual market value and expected market value of our plan
assets and is determined by our actuaries using a five-year moving weighted
average methodology. Gains and losses on plan assets are spread through the
MRVPA based on the five-year moving weighted average methodology, which affects
the expected return on plan assets component of pension expense.
Pension
Benefits
We
sponsor two tax-qualified defined benefit retirement plans for our eligible
employees, the AGL Resources Inc. Retirement Plan (AGL Retirement Plan) and the
Employees’ Retirement Plan of NUI Corporation (NUI Retirement Plan). A defined
benefit plan specifies the amount of benefits an eligible participant eventually
will receive using information about the participant.
We
generally calculate the benefits under the AGL Retirement Plan based on age,
years of service and pay. The benefit formula for the AGL Retirement Plan is a
career average earnings formula, except for participants who were employees as
of July 1, 2000, and who were at least 50 years of age as of that date. For
those participants, we use a final average earnings benefit formula, and will
continue to use this benefit formula for such participants until June 2010, at
which time any of those participants who are still active will accrue future
benefits under the career average earnings formula.
The NUI
Retirement Plan covers substantially all of NUI’s employees who were employed on
or before December 31, 2006, except Florida City Gas union employees, who until
February 2008 participated in a union-sponsored multiemployer plan. Pension
benefits are based on years of credited service and final average
compensation.
Postretirement
Benefits
We
sponsor a defined benefit postretirement health care plan for our eligible
employees, the Health and Welfare Plan for Retirees and Inactive Employees of
AGL Resources Inc. (AGL Postretirement Plan). Eligibility for these benefits is
based on age and years of service.
The AGL
Postretirement Plan covers all eligible AGL Resources employees who were
employed as of June 30, 2002, if they reach retirement age while working for us.
The state regulatory commissions have approved phase-ins that defer a portion of
other postretirement benefits expense for future recovery. We recorded a
regulatory asset for these future recoveries of $11 million as of December 31,
2008 and $12 million as of December 31, 2007. In addition, we recorded a
regulatory liability of $5 million as of December 31, 2008 and $4 million as of
December 31, 2007 for our expected expenses under the AGL Postretirement Plan.
We expect to pay $7 million of insurance claims for the postretirement plan in
2009, but we do not anticipate making any additional contributions.
Effective
December 8, 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization
Act of 2003 was signed into law. This act provides for a prescription drug
benefit under Medicare (Part D) as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of
retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least
actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D.
Medicare-eligible
participants receive prescription drug benefits through a Medicare Part D plan
offered by a third party and to which we subsidize participant premiums.
Medicare-eligible retirees who opt out of the AGL Postretirement Plan are
eligible to receive a cash subsidy which may be used towards eligible
prescription drug expenses.
SFAS 158
In September 2006,
the FASB issued SFAS 158, which we adopted prospectively on December 31, 2007.
SFAS 158 requires that we recognize all obligations related to defined benefit
pensions and other postretirement benefits. This statement requires that we
quantify the plans’ funding status as an asset or a liability on our
consolidated balance sheets. SFAS 158 further requires that we measure the
plans’ assets and obligations that determine our funded status as of the end of
the fiscal year. We are also required to recognize as a component of OCI the
changes in funded status that occurred during the year that are not recognized
as part of net periodic benefit cost as explained in SFAS 87, or SFAS
106.
Based on
the funded status of our defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit
plans as of December 31, 2008, we reported an after-tax loss to our OCI of
$111 million, a net increase of $184 million to accrued pension and
postretirement obligations and a decrease of $73 million to accumulated deferred
income taxes. Our adoption of SFAS 158 on December 31, 2007, had no impact on
our earnings.
Contributions
Our
employees do not contribute to the retirement plans. Additionally, we annually
fund our postretirement plan; however, our retirees contribute 20% of medical
premiums, 50% of the medical premium for spousal coverage and 100% of the dental
premium to the AGL Postretirement Plan. We fund the plans by contributing at
least the minimum amount required by applicable regulations and as recommended
by our actuary. However, we may also contribute in excess of the minimum
required amount. We calculate the minimum amount of funding using the projected
unit credit cost method.
The
Pension Protection Act (the Act) of 2006 contained new funding requirements for
single employer defined benefit pension plans. The Act establishes a 100%
funding target for plan years beginning after December 31, 2008. However, a
delayed effective date of 2011 may apply if the pension plan meets the following
targets; 92% funded in 2008; 94% funded in 2009; and 96% funded in 2010. In
December 2008, the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of
2008 allowed us to measure our 2008 and 2009 funding target at 92%. In 2008
and 2007, we did not make contributions as one was not required for our pension
plans. For more information on our 2009 contributions to our pension plans, see
Note 7.
The
following tables present details about our pension and postretirement
plans.
|
|
AGL
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
NUI
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
AGL
Postretirement Plan
|
|
Dollars
in millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Change
in benefit obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit
obligation, January 1,
|
|
$
|
353
|
|
|
$
|
368
|
|
|
$
|
74
|
|
|
$
|
86
|
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
|
$
|
95
|
|
Service
cost
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Interest
cost
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Actuarial
loss (gain)
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Benefits
paid
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Benefit
obligation, December 31,
|
|
$
|
370
|
|
|
$
|
353
|
|
|
$
|
72
|
|
|
$
|
74
|
|
|
$
|
95
|
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
Change
in plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
value of plan assets, January 1,
|
|
$
|
313
|
|
|
$
|
303
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
|
$
|
72
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
|
$
|
63
|
|
Actual
(loss) gain on plan assets
|
|
|
(93
|
)
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
7
|
|
Employer
contribution
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
Benefits
paid
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
Fair
value of plan assets, December 31,
|
|
$
|
200
|
|
|
$
|
313
|
|
|
$
|
42
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
|
$
|
49
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
Amounts
recognized in the consolidated balance sheets consist of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
liability
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Long-term
liability
|
|
|
(169
|
)
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
Total
liability at December 31,
|
|
$
|
(170
|
)
|
|
$
|
(40
|
)
|
|
$
|
(30
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(46
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24
|
)
|
Assumptions
used to determine benefit obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount
rate
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
Rate
of compensation increase
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
Accumulated
benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
352
|
|
|
$
|
337
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
|
$
|
74
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
The
components of our pension and postretirement benefit costs are set forth in the
following table.
|
|
AGL
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
NUI
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
AGL
Postretirement Plan
|
|
Dollars
in millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Net
benefit cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service
cost
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
Interest
cost
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Expected
return on plan assets
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Net
amortization
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
Recognized
actuarial loss
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Net
annual pension cost
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
Assumptions
used to determine benefit costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount
rate
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.8
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
Expected
return on plan assets
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
8.5
|
%
|
Rate
of compensation increase
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
There
were no other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized for our
retirement and postretirement plans for the year ended December 31, 2008.The
2009 estimated OCI amortization and expected refunds for these plans are set
forth in the following table.
In
millions
|
|
AGL
Retirement
Plan
|
|
|
NUI
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
AGL
Postretirement Plan
|
|
Amortization
of prior service cost
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
Amortization
of net loss
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Refunds
expected
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
We
consider a number of factors in determining and selecting assumptions for the
overall expected long-term rate of return on plan assets. We consider the
historical long-term return experience of our assets, the current and expected
allocation of our plan assets, and expected long-term rates of return. We derive
these expected long-term rates of return with the assistance of our investment
advisors and generally base these rates on a 10-year horizon for various asset
classes, our expected investments of plan assets and active asset management as
opposed to investment in a passive index fund. We base our expected allocation
of plan assets on a diversified portfolio consisting of domestic and
international equity securities, fixed income, real estate, private equity
securities and alternative asset classes.
We
consider a variety of factors in determining and selecting our assumptions for
the discount rate at December 31. We consider certain market indices, including
Moody’s Corporate AA long-term bond rate, the Citigroup Pension Liability rate,
a single equivalent discount rate derived with the assistance of our actuaries
and our own payment stream based on these indices to develop our rate.
Consequently, we selected a discount rate of 6.2% as of December 31, 2008,
following our review of these various factors. Our actual retirement and
postretirement plans’ weighted average asset allocations at December 31, 2008
and 2007 and our target asset allocation ranges are as follows:
|
Target
Range Asset Allocation
|
AGL
Retirement Plan
|
NUI
Retirement Plan
|
AGL
Postretirement Plan
|
|
2008
|
2007
|
2008
|
2007
|
2008
|
2007
|
Equity
|
30%-95%
|
63%
|
68%
|
63%
|
71%
|
70%
|
73%
|
Fixed
income
|
10%-40%
|
30%
|
25%
|
32%
|
27%
|
28%
|
26%
|
Real
estate and other
|
10%-35%
|
6%
|
3%
|
-
|
2%
|
-
|
-
|
Cash
|
0%-10%
|
1%
|
4%
|
5%
|
-
|
2%
|
1%
|
Our
health care trend rate for the AGL Postretirement Plan is capped at 2.5%. This
cap limits the increase in our contributions to the annual change in the
consumer price index (CPI). An annual CPI rate of 2.5% was assumed for future
years. Assumed health care cost trend rates impact the amounts reported for our
health care plans. A one-percentage-point change in the assumed health care cost
trend rates would have the following effects for the AGL Postretirement
Plan.
|
|
AGL
Postretirement Plan
|
|
|
|
One-Percentage-Point
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Increase
|
|
|
Decrease
|
|
Effect
on total of service and interest cost
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Effect
on accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
The
following table presents expected benefit payments for the years ended December
31, 2009 through 2018 for our retirement and postretirement plans. There will be
benefit payments under these plans beyond 2018.
In
millions
|
|
|
AGL
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
NUI
Retirement
Plan
|
|
|
AGL
Postretirement Plan
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
2012
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
2014-2018
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Total
|
|
|
$
|
219
|
|
|
$
|
58
|
|
|
$
|
70
|
|
The
following table presents the amounts not yet reflected in net periodic benefit
cost and included in accumulated OCI as of December 31, 2008.
In
millions
|
|
AGL
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
NUI
Retirement
Plan
|
|
|
AGL
Postretirement Plan
|
|
Prior
service credit
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17
|
)
|
Net
loss
|
|
|
195
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
Accumulated
OCI
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
Net
amount recognized in consolidated balance sheet
|
|
|
(170
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(46
|
)
|
Prepaid
(accrued) cumulative employer contributions in excess of net periodic
benefit cost
|
|
$
|
18
|
|
|
$
|
(21
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24
|
)
|
There
were no other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized in our
retirement and postretirement plans for the year ended December 31,
2008.
Employee
Savings Plan Benefits
We
sponsor the Retirement Savings Plus Plan (RSP), a defined contribution benefit
plan that allows eligible participants to make contributions to their accounts
up to specified limits. Under the RSP, we made matching contributions to
participant accounts of $6 million in 2008, 2007 and 2006.
General
We
currently sponsor the following stock-based and other incentive compensation
plans and agreements:
|
|
Shares
issuable upon exercise of outstanding stock options and / or SARs
(1)
|
|
|
Shares
issuable and / or SARs available for issuance (1)
|
|
Details
|
2007
Omnibus Performance Incentive Plan
|
|
|
280,200
|
|
|
|
4,561,386
|
|
Grants
of incentive and nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights
(SARs), shares of restricted stock, restricted stock units and performance
cash awards to key employees.
|
Long-Term Incentive Plan
(1999)
(2)
|
|
|
2,221,407
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Grants
of incentive and nonqualified stock options, shares of restricted stock
and performance units to key employees.
|
Officer
Incentive Plan
|
|
|
76,224
|
|
|
|
211,409
|
|
Grants
of nonqualified stock options and shares of restricted stock to new-hire
officers.
|
2006
Non-Employee Directors Equity Compensation Plan
|
|
not
applicable
|
|
|
|
173,433
|
|
Grants
of stock to non-employee directors in connection with non-employee
director compensation (for annual retainer, chair retainer and for initial
election or appointment).
|
1996
Non-Employee Directors Equity Compensation Plan
|
|
|
42,924
|
|
|
|
13,304
|
|
Grants
of nonqualified stock options and stock to non-employee directors in
connection with non-employee director compensation (for annual retainer
and for initial election or appointment). The plan was amended in 2002 to
eliminate the granting of stock options.
|
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan
|
|
not
applicable
|
|
|
|
321,912
|
|
Nonqualified,
broad-based employee stock purchase plan for eligible
employees
|
(1)
|
As
of December 31, 2008
|
(2)
|
Following
shareholder approval of the Omnibus Performance Incentive Plan, no further
grants will be made except for reload options that may be granted under
the plan’s outstanding options.
|
Accounting
Treatment and Compensation Expense
Effective
January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS 123R, using the modified prospective
application transition method. Prior to January 1, 2006, we accounted for our
share-based payment transactions in accordance with SFAS 123, as amended by SFAS
148. This allowed us to rely on APB 25 and related interpretations in accounting
for our stock-based compensation plans under the intrinsic value
method.
SFAS
123R requires us to measure and recognize stock-based compensation expense
in our financial statements based on the estimated fair value at the date of
grant for our stock-based awards, which include:
·
|
performance
units (restricted stock units and performance cash
units)
|
Performance-based
stock awards and performance units contain market conditions. Stock options,
restricted stock awards and performance units also contain a service condition.
In accordance with SFAS 123R, we recognize compensation expense over the
requisite service period for:
·
|
awards
granted on or after January 1, 2006
and
|
·
|
unvested
awards previously granted and outstanding as of January 1,
2006
|
In
addition, we estimate forfeitures over the requisite service period when
recognizing compensation expense. These estimates are adjusted to the extent
that actual forfeitures differ, or are expected to materially differ, from such
estimates.
The
following table provides additional information on compensation costs and income
tax benefits related to our stock-based compensation awards. We recorded these
amounts in our consolidated statements of income for the years ended December
31, 2008, 2007 and 2006.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Compensation
costs
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
Income
tax benefits
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Prior to
our adoption of SFAS 123R, benefits of tax deductions in excess of recognized
compensation costs were reported as operating cash flows. SFAS 123R requires
excess tax benefits to be reported as a financing cash inflow rather than as a
reduction of taxes paid. In 2007 and 2006, our cash flows from financing
activities included an immaterial amount for recognized compensation costs in
excess of the benefits of tax deductions. In 2008, we included $2 million of
such benefits in cash flow provided by operating activities.
Incentive
and Nonqualified Stock Options
We grant
incentive and nonqualified stock options with a strike price equal to the fair
market value on the date of the grant. “Fair market value” is defined under the
terms of the applicable plans as the most recent closing price per share of AGL
Resources common stock as reported in
The Wall Street Journal
.
Stock options generally have a three-year vesting period. Nonqualified options
generally expire 10 years after the date of grant. Participants realize value
from option grants only to the extent that the fair market value of our common
stock on the date of exercise of the option exceeds the fair market value of the
common stock on the date of the grant. Compensation expense associated with
stock options is generally recorded over the option vesting period; however, for
unvested options that are granted to employees who are retirement-eligible, the
remaining compensation expense is recorded in the current period rather than
over the remaining vesting period.
As of
December 31, 2008, we had $2 million of total unrecognized compensation costs
related to stock options. These costs are expected to be recognized over the
remaining average requisite service period of approximately 2 years. Cash
received from stock option exercises for 2008 was $5 million, and the income tax
benefit from stock option exercises was $1 million. The following tables
summarize activity related to stock options for key employees and non-employee
directors.
Stock
Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
of options
|
|
|
Weighted
average exercise price
|
|
|
Weighted
average remaining life
(in
years)
|
|
|
Aggregate
intrinsic value (in millions)
|
|
Outstanding
– December 31, 2005
|
|
|
2,221,245
|
|
|
$
|
27.79
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
914,216
|
|
|
|
35.81
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(543,557
|
)
|
|
|
24.69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
(1)
|
|
|
(266,418
|
)
|
|
|
34.93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
– December 31, 2006
|
|
|
2,325,486
|
|
|
$
|
30.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
735,196
|
|
|
|
39.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(361,385
|
)
|
|
|
27.78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
(1)
|
|
|
(181,799
|
)
|
|
|
36.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
– December 31, 2007
|
|
|
2,517,498
|
|
|
$
|
33.28
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
258,017
|
|
|
|
38.70
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(212,600
|
)
|
|
|
23.53
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
(1)
|
|
|
(86,926
|
)
|
|
|
38.01
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
– December 31, 2008
|
|
|
2,475,989
|
|
|
$
|
34.52
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable
– December 31, 2008
|
|
|
1,447,508
|
|
|
$
|
32.18
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
(1)
Includes 4,226 shares which expired in 2008, none in 2007 and 452 in
2006.
Unvested
Stock Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
of unvested options
|
|
|
Weighted
average exercise price
|
|
|
Weighted
average remaining vesting period
(in
years)
|
|
|
Weighted
average fair value
|
|
Outstanding
– December 31, 2007
|
|
|
1,414,962
|
|
|
$
|
37.02
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
$
|
4.82
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
258,017
|
|
|
|
38.70
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
2.64
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(51,497
|
)
|
|
|
38.68
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
4.39
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(593,001
|
)
|
|
|
36.26
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
4.77
|
|
Outstanding
– December 31, 2008
|
|
|
1,028,481
|
|
|
$
|
37.80
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
4.33
|
|
Information
about outstanding and exercisable options as of December 31, 2008, is as
follows.
|
|
|
Options
outstanding
|
|
|
Options
Exercisable
|
|
Range
of Exercise Prices
|
|
|
Number
of options
|
|
|
Weighted
average remaining contractual life
(in
years)
|
|
|
Weighted
average exercise price
|
|
|
Number
of
options
|
|
|
Weighted
average exercise price
|
|
$
|
16.25
to $20.79
|
|
|
|
27,274
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
$
|
19.53
|
|
|
|
27,274
|
|
|
$
|
19.53
|
|
$
|
20.80
to $25.34
|
|
|
|
173,326
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
21.82
|
|
|
|
173,326
|
|
|
|
21.82
|
|
$
|
25.35
to $29.89
|
|
|
|
233,157
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
27.07
|
|
|
|
233,157
|
|
|
|
27.07
|
|
$
|
29.90
to $34.44
|
|
|
|
406,701
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
33.21
|
|
|
|
406,701
|
|
|
|
33.21
|
|
$
|
34.45
to $38.99
|
|
|
|
1,388,835
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
37.15
|
|
|
|
587,250
|
|
|
|
36.83
|
|
$
|
39.00
to $43.54
|
|
|
|
246,696
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
39.43
|
|
|
|
19,800
|
|
|
|
41.20
|
|
Outstanding
- Dec. 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
2,475,989
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
$
|
34.52
|
|
|
|
1,447,508
|
|
|
$
|
32.18
|
|
Summarized
below are outstanding options that are fully exercisable.
Exercisable
at:
|
|
Number
of options
|
|
|
Weighted
average exercise price
|
|
December
31, 2006
|
|
|
1,013,672
|
|
|
$
|
25.45
|
|
December
31, 2007
|
|
|
1,102,536
|
|
|
$
|
28.48
|
|
December
31, 2008
|
|
|
1,447,508
|
|
|
$
|
32.18
|
|
In
accordance with the fair value method of determining compensation expense, we
use the Black-Scholes pricing model. Below are the ranges for per share value
and information about the underlying assumptions used in developing the grant
date value for each of the grants made during 2008, 2007 and 2006.
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Expected
life (years)
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Risk-free
interest rate %
(1)
|
|
|
2.93
- 3.31
|
|
|
|
3.87
– 5.05
|
|
|
|
4.5
– 5.1
|
|
Expected
volatility %
(2)
|
|
|
12.8
- 13.0
|
|
|
|
13.2
– 14.3
|
|
|
|
14.2
– 15.9
|
|
Dividend
yield %
(3)
|
|
|
4.3
– 4.84
|
|
|
|
3.8
– 4.2
|
|
|
|
3.7
– 4.2
|
|
Fair
value of options granted
(4)
|
|
$
|
0.19
– $2.69
|
|
|
$
|
3.55
– $5.98
|
|
|
$
|
4.55–
$6.18
|
|
(1)
|
US
Treasury constant maturity - 7
years
|
(2)
|
Volatility
is measured over 7 years, the expected life of the options; weighted
average volatility % for 2008 was 13.0%, 2007 was 14.2% and 2006 was
15.8%.
|
(3)
|
Weighted
average dividend yields for 2008 was 4.3%, 2007 was 4.2% and 2006 was
4.1%
|
(4)
|
Represents
per share value.
|
Intrinsic
value for options is defined as the difference between the current market value
and the grant price. Total intrinsic value of options exercised during 2008 was
$2 million. With the implementation of our share repurchase program in 2006, we
use shares purchased under this program to satisfy share-based exercises to the
extent that repurchased shares are available. Otherwise, we issue new shares
from our authorized common stock.
Performance
Units
In
general, a performance unit is an award of the right to receive (i) an equal
number of shares of our common stock, which we refer to as a restricted stock
unit or (ii) cash, subject to the achievement of certain pre-established
performance criteria, which we refer to as a performance cash unit. Performance
units are subject to certain transfer restrictions and forfeiture upon
termination of employment. The dollar value of restricted stock unit awards is
equal to the grant date fair value of the awards, over the requisite service
period, determined pursuant to FAS 123R. The dollar value of performance cash
unit awards is equal to the grant date fair value of the awards measured against
progress towards the performance measure, over the requisite service period,
determined pursuant to FAS 123R. No other assumptions are used to value these
awards.
Restricted Stock
Units
In
general, a restricted stock unit is an award that represents the opportunity to
receive a specified number of shares of our common stock, subject to the
achievement of certain pre-established performance criteria. In 2008, we granted
to a select group a total of 206,700 restricted stock units (the 2008 restricted
stock units), of which 196,100 of these units were outstanding as of December
31, 2008. These restricted stock units had a performance measurement period that
ended December 31, 2008, and a performance measure related to a basic earnings
per share goal that was met.
Performance Cash
Units
In
general, a performance cash unit is an award that represents the opportunity to
receive a cash award, subject to the achievement of certain pre-established
performance criteria. In 2008, we granted performance cash awards to a select
group of officers. These awards have a performance measure that is related to
annual growth in basic earnings per share, plus the average dividend yield, as
adjusted to reflect the effect of economic value created during the performance
measurement period by our wholesale services segment. In 2008, the basic
earnings per share growth target was not achieved with respect to the 2007
awards. Accruals in connection with these grants are as follows:
Dollars
in millions
|
|
Units
|
|
Measurement
period
end date
|
|
Accrued
at Dec. 31, 2008
|
|
|
Maximum
aggregate payout
|
|
Year
of grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
(1)
|
|
|
15
|
|
Dec.
31, 2008
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
2007
|
|
|
23
|
|
Dec.
31, 2009
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
2008
|
|
|
3
|
|
Dec.
31, 2010
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
(1)
|
In
February 2009, the 2006 performance cash units vested and resulted in an
aggregate payout of $1 million.
|
Stock
and Restricted Stock Awards
In
general, we refer to a stock award as an award of our common stock that is 100%
vested and not forfeitable as of the date of grant. We refer to restricted stock
as an award of our common stock that is subject to time-based vesting or
achievement of performance measures. Restricted stock awards are subject to
certain transfer restrictions and forfeiture upon termination of employment. The
dollar value of both stock awards and restricted stock awards are equal to the
grant date fair value of the awards, over the requisite service period,
determined pursuant to FAS 123R. No other assumptions are used to value the
awards.
Stock Awards
–
Non-Employee Directors
Non-employee director
compensation may be paid in shares of our common stock in connection with
initial election, the annual retainer, and chair retainers, as applicable. Stock
awards for non-employee directors are 100% vested and nonforfeitable as of the
date of grant. The following table summarizes activity during 2008, related to
stock awards for our non-employee directors.
Restricted
Stock Awards
|
|
Shares
of restricted stock
|
|
|
Weighted
average fair value
|
|
Issued
|
|
|
15,674
|
|
|
$
|
35.05
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
15,674
|
|
|
$
|
35.05
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Restricted Stock
Awards
–
Employees
From time to time, we may give restricted stock awards to our key employees. The
following table summarizes activity during the year ended December 31, 2008,
related to restricted stock awards for our key employees.
Restricted
Stock Awards
|
|
Shares
of restricted stock
|
|
|
Weighted
average remaining vesting period (in years)
|
|
|
Weighted
average fair value
|
|
Outstanding – December 31,
2007
(1)
|
|
|
349,036
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
$
|
38.15
|
|
Issued
|
|
|
28,024
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
35.63
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(6,483
|
)
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
38.43
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(70,199
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
36.75
|
|
Outstanding – December 31, 2008
(1)
|
|
|
300,378
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
$
|
37.87
|
|
(1)
|
Subject
to restriction
|
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP)
Under the
ESPP, employees may purchase shares of our common stock in quarterly intervals
at 85% of fair market value. Employee contributions under the ESPP may not
exceed $25,000 per employee during any calendar year.
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Shares
purchased on the open market
|
|
|
66,247
|
|
|
|
52,299
|
|
|
|
45,361
|
|
Average
per-share purchase price
|
|
$
|
33.22
|
|
|
$
|
34.69
|
|
|
$
|
31.40
|
|
Purchase
price discount
|
|
$
|
326,615
|
|
|
$
|
313,584
|
|
|
$
|
252,752
|
|
Treasury
Shares
Our Board
of Directors has authorized us to purchase up to 8 million treasury shares
through our repurchase plans. These plans are used to offset shares issued under
our employee and non-employee director incentive compensation plans and our
dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plans. Stock purchases under these
plans may be made in the open market or in private transactions at times and in
amounts that we deem appropriate. There is no guarantee as to the exact number
of shares that we will purchase, and we can terminate or limit the program at
any time. We will hold the purchased shares as treasury shares and account for
them using the cost method. As of December 31, 2008 we had 5 million remaining
authorized shares available for purchase. The following table provides more
information on our treasury share activity.
In
millions, except per share amounts
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
purchased
|
|
|
Weighted
average price per share
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
38
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
36.67
|
|
2007
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
39.56
|
|
2008
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Dividends
Our
common shareholders may receive dividends when declared at the discretion of our
Board of Directors. Dividends may be paid in cash, stock or other form of
payment, and payment of future dividends will depend on our future earnings,
cash flow, financial requirements and other factors. Additionally, we derive a
substantial portion of our consolidated assets, earnings and cash flow from the
operation of regulated utility subsidiaries, whose legal authority to pay
dividends or make other distributions to us is subject to regulation. As with
most other companies, the payment of dividends are restricted by laws in the
states where we do business. In certain cases, our ability to pay dividends to
our common shareholders is limited by the following:
·
|
our
ability to pay our debts as they become due in the usual course of
business, satisfy our obligations under certain financing agreements,
including debt-to-capitalization
covenants
|
·
|
our
total assets are less than our total liabilities,
and
|
·
|
our
ability to satisfy our obligations to any preferred
shareholders
|
Our
issuance of various securities, including long-term and short-term debt, is
subject to customary approval or authorization by state and federal regulatory
bodies, including state public service commissions, the SEC and the FERC as
granted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The following table provides more
information on our various securities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
average
|
|
|
Outstanding
as of December 31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Year(s)
due
|
|
|
Interest
rate
(1)
|
|
|
interest
rate
(2)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Short-term
debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit
Facilities
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
500
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
Commercial
paper
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
273
|
|
|
|
566
|
|
SouthStar
line of credit
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Sequent
lines of credit
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Capital
leases
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Pivotal
Utility line of credit
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
Total
short-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
866
|
|
|
$
|
580
|
|
Long-term
debt - net of current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior
notes
|
|
|
2011-2034
|
|
|
|
4.5-7.1
|
%
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,275
|
|
|
$
|
1,275
|
|
Gas
facility revenue bonds
|
|
|
2022-2033
|
|
|
|
0.7-5.3
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
Medium-term
notes
|
|
|
2012-2027
|
|
|
|
6.6-9.1
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
196
|
|
|
|
196
|
|
Capital
leases
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
AGL
Capital interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
Total
long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,675
|
|
|
$
|
1,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,541
|
|
|
$
|
2,255
|
|
(1)
|
As
of December 31, 2008.
|
(2)
|
For
the year ended December 31,
2008.
|
Short-term
Debt
Our
short-term debt at December 31, 2008 and 2007 was composed of borrowings under
our commercial paper program; Credit Facilities; current portions of our capital
lease obligations; and lines of credit for Sequent, SouthStar and Pivotal
Utility.
Commercial Paper
and Credit Facilities
Our commercial paper
consists of short-term, unsecured promissory notes with maturities ranging from
2 to 16 days. These unsecured promissory notes are supported by our $1 billion
Credit Facility which expires in August 2011 and a supplemental $140 million
Credit Facility that expires in September 2009. We have the option to request an
increase in the aggregate principal amount available for borrowing under the $1
billion Credit Facility to $1.25 billion on not more than three occasions during
each calendar year. The $140 million Credit Facility allows for the option to
request an increase in the borrowing capacity to $150 million.
Several
of our subsidiaries, including SouthStar participate in our commercial paper
program. As of December 31, 2008, we had $273 million of commercial paper
borrowings and $500 million outstanding under the Credit Facilities. As of
December 31, 2007, we did not have any amounts outstanding under the Credit
Facilities.
SouthStar
Credit
Facility
SouthStar’s five-year $75 million unsecured credit facility
expires in November 2011. SouthStar will use this line of credit for working
capital and its general corporate needs. We had $75 million of outstanding
borrowings on this line of credit at December 31, 2008. At December 31, 2007,
there were no outstanding borrowings on this line of credit. We do not guarantee
or provide any other form of security for the repayment of this credit facility.
Sequent Lines of
Credit
In
June 2008, we extended Sequent’s $25 million unsecured line of credit to June
2009, which bears interest at the federal funds effective rate plus 0.75%. In
September 2008, Sequent extended its second $20 million line of credit that
bears interest at the LIBOR rate plus 1.0% to September 2009. In December 2008
the terms of this line of credit were amended to $5 million bearing interest at
the LIBOR Rate plus 3.0%. Both lines of credit are used solely for the posting
of margin deposits for NYMEX transactions and are unconditionally guaranteed by
us.
Pivotal Utility
Line of Credit
This $20 million line of credit, which had been
established to support Elizabethtown Gas’ hedging program, was terminated in
October 2008. For more information on this hedging program, see Note
2.
Long-term
Debt
Our
long-term debt at December 31, 2008 and 2007 matures more than one year from the
balance sheet date and consists of medium-term notes: Series A, Series B and
Series C, which we issued under an indenture dated December 1, 1989; senior
notes; gas facility revenue bonds; and capital leases. Our annual maturities of
long-term debt, excluding capital leases of $4 million, are as
follows:
Year
|
|
Amount
(in
millions)
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
2012
|
|
|
15
|
|
2013
|
|
|
225
|
|
2015
|
|
|
200
|
|
2016
|
|
|
300
|
|
2017
|
|
|
22
|
|
2021
|
|
|
30
|
|
2022
|
|
|
93
|
|
2024
|
|
|
20
|
|
2026
|
|
|
69
|
|
2027
|
|
|
53
|
|
2032
|
|
|
55
|
|
2033
|
|
|
39
|
|
2034
|
|
|
250
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,671
|
|
Medium-term
notes
The
following table provides more information on our medium-term notes, which were
issued to refinance portions of our existing short-term debt and for general
corporate purposes. Our annual maturities of our medium-term notes are as
follows:
Issue
Date
|
|
Amount
(in
millions)
|
|
|
Interest
rate
|
|
Maturity
|
June
1992
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
%
|
June
2012
|
June
1992
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
June
2012
|
June
1992
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
July
2012
|
July
1997
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
July
2017
|
Feb.
1991
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
Feb.
2021
|
April
1992
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
8.55
|
|
April
2022
|
April
1992
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
8.7
|
|
April
2022
|
April
1992
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
8.55
|
|
April
2022
|
May
1992
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
8.55
|
|
May
2022
|
Nov.
1996
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
6.55
|
|
Nov.
2026
|
July
1997
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
July
2027
|
Total
|
|
$
|
196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior
Notes
The
following table provides more information on our senior notes, which were issued
to refinance portions of our existing short-term and long-term debt, to finance
acquisitions and for general corporate purposes.
Issue
date
|
|
Amount
(in
millions)
|
|
|
Interest
rate
|
Maturity
|
Feb.
2001
|
|
$
|
300
|
|
|
|
7.125
|
%
|
Jan
2011
|
July
2003
|
|
|
225
|
|
|
|
4.45
|
|
Apr
2013
|
Dec.
2004
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
4.95
|
|
Jan
2015
|
June
2006
|
|
|
175
|
|
|
|
6.375
|
|
Jul
2016
|
Dec.
2007
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
6.375
|
|
Jul
2016
|
Sep.
2004
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
Oct
2034
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,275
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
trustee with respect to all of the above-referenced senior notes is The Bank of
New York Trust Company, N.A., pursuant to an indenture dated February 20, 2001.
We fully and unconditionally guarantee all of our senior notes.
Gas Facility
Revenue Bonds
Pivotal Utility is party
to a series of loan agreements with the New Jersey Economic Development
Authority (NJEDA) pursuant to which the NJEDA has issued a series of gas
facility revenue bonds as shown in the following table.
Issue
Date
|
|
Amount
(in
millions)
|
|
|
Interest
rate
|
|
Maturity
|
July 1994
(1)
|
|
$
|
47
|
|
|
|
0.70
|
%
|
Oct.
2022
|
July 1994
(1)
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
1.10
|
|
Oct.
2024
|
June 1992
(1)
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
1.10
|
|
June
2026
|
June 1992
(1)
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
June
2032
|
July
1997
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
5.25
|
|
Nov.
2033
|
Total
|
|
$
|
200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Interest
rate is adjusted daily or weekly. Rates indicated are as of December 31,
2008.
|
In 2008,
a portion of our gas facility revenue bonds failed to draw enough potential
buyers due to the dislocation or disruption in the auction markets as a result
of the downgrades to the bond insurers that provide credit protections for these
instruments which reduced investor demand and liquidity for these types of
investments. In March and April 2008, we tendered these bonds with a cumulative
principal amount of $161 million through commercial paper
borrowings.
In June
and September 2008, we completed a Letter of Credit Agreement for these bonds
which provided additional credit support which increased investor demand for the
bonds. As a result, these bonds with a cumulative principal amount of $161
million were successfully auctioned and issued as variable rate gas facility
bonds and reduced our commercial paper borrowings. The bonds with principal
amounts of $55 million, $47 million and $39 million now have interest rates that
reset daily and the bond with a principal amount of $20 million has an interest
rate that resets weekly. There was no change to the maturity dates on these
bonds.
Preferred
Securities
As of December 31, 2008,
we had 10 million shares of authorized, unissued Class A junior participating
preferred stock, no par value, and 10 million shares of authorized, unissued
preferred stock, no par value.
Capital Leases
Our capital leases consist primarily of a sale/leaseback transaction
completed in 2002 by Florida City Gas related to its gas meters and other
equipment and will be repaid at approximately $1 million per year until 2013.
Pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement, Florida City Gas is required to
insure the leased equipment during the lease term. In addition, at the
expiration of the lease term, Florida City Gas has the option to purchase the
leased meters from the lessor at their fair market value. The fair market value
of the equipment will be determined on the basis of an arm’s-length transaction
between an informed and willing buyer.
Default
Events
Our
Credit Facilities’ financial covenants requires us to maintain a ratio of total
debt to total capitalization of no greater than 70%; however, our goal is to
maintain this ratio at levels between 50% and 60%. Our ratio of total debt to
total capitalization calculation contained in our debt covenant includes
minority interest, standby letters of credit, surety bonds and the exclusion of
other comprehensive income pension adjustments. Adjusting for these items, our
debt-to-equity calculation, as defined by our Credit Facilities, was 59% at
December 31, 2008 and 58% at December 31, 2007. These amounts are within our
required and targeted ranges. Our debt-to-equity calculation, as calculated from
our consolidated balance sheets, was 61% at December 31, 2008 and 58% at
December 31, 2007.
Our debt
instruments and other financial obligations include provisions that, if not
complied with, could require early payment, additional collateral support or
similar actions. Our most important default events include:
·
|
a
maximum leverage ratio
|
·
|
insolvency
events and nonpayment of scheduled principal or interest
payments
|
·
|
acceleration
of other financial obligations
|
·
|
change
of control provisions
|
We have
no trigger events in our debt instruments that are tied to changes in our
specified credit ratings or our stock price and have not entered into any
transaction that requires us to issue equity based on credit ratings or other
trigger events. We are currently in compliance with all existing debt provisions
and covenants.
We have
incurred various contractual obligations and financial commitments in the normal
course of our operating and financing activities that are reasonably likely to
have a material affect on liquidity or the availability of requirements for
capital resources. Contractual obligations include future cash payments required
under existing contractual arrangements, such as debt and lease agreements.
These obligations may result from both general financing activities and from
commercial arrangements that are directly supported by related revenue-producing
activities. As we do for other subsidiaries, we provide guarantees to certain
gas suppliers for SouthStar in support of payment obligations. The following
table illustrates our expected future contractual payments such as debt and
lease agreements, and commitment and contingencies as of December 31,
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
&
|
|
|
&
|
|
|
&
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
thereafter
|
|
Recorded
contractual obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term
debt
|
|
$
|
1,675
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
302
|
|
|
$
|
242
|
|
|
$
|
1,131
|
|
Short-term
debt
|
|
|
866
|
|
|
|
866
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Environmental remediation
liabilities
(1)
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
PRP costs
(1)
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,836
|
|
|
$
|
932
|
|
|
$
|
434
|
|
|
$
|
329
|
|
|
$
|
1,141
|
|
Unrecorded
contractual obligations and commitments
(2)
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
charges
(3)
|
|
$
|
975
|
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
|
$
|
168
|
|
|
$
|
137
|
|
|
$
|
576
|
|
Pipeline charges, storage
capacity and gas supply
(4)
|
|
|
1,713
|
|
|
|
491
|
|
|
|
573
|
|
|
|
299
|
|
|
|
350
|
|
Operating leases
(5)
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
Standby
letters of credit, performance /
surety
bonds
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Asset management
agreements
(6)
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Pension contribution (7)
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,916
|
|
|
$
|
682
|
|
|
$
|
808
|
|
|
$
|
463
|
|
|
$
|
963
|
|
(1)
|
Includes
charges recoverable through rate rider
mechanisms.
|
(2)
|
In
accordance with GAAP, these items are not reflected in our consolidated
balance sheets.
|
(3)
|
Floating
rate debt is based on the interest rate as of December 31, 2008 and the
maturity of the underlying debt instrument. As of December 31, 2008, we
have $35 million of accrued interest on our consolidated balance sheet
that will be paid in 2009.
|
(4)
|
Charges
recoverable through a natural gas cost recovery mechanism or alternatively
billed to Marketers. Also includes demand charges associated with Sequent.
A subsidiary of NUI entered into two 20-year agreements for the firm
transportation and storage of natural gas during 2003 with annual
aggregate demand charges of approximately $5 million. As a result of our
acquisition of NUI and in accordance with SFAS 141, we valued the
contracts at fair value and established a long-term liability of $38
million for the excess liability that will be amortized to our
consolidated statements of income over the remaining lives of the
contracts of $2 million annually through November 2023 and $1 million
annually from November 2023 to November 2028. The gas supply amount
includes SouthStar gas commodity purchase commitments of 15 Bcf at
floating gas prices calculated using forward natural gas prices as of
December 31, 2008, and is valued at $85
million.
|
(5)
|
We
have certain operating leases with provisions for step rent or escalation
payments and certain lease concessions. We account for these leases by
recognizing the future minimum lease payments on a straight-line basis
over the respective minimum lease terms, in accordance with SFAS 13.
However, this lease accounting treatment does not affect the future annual
operating lease cash obligations as shown
herein.
|
(6)
|
Represent fixed-fee minimum
payments for Sequent’s affiliated asset management
agreements
.
|
(7)
|
Based
on the current funding status of the plans, we would be required to make a
minimum contribution to our pension plans of approximately $7 million in
2009. We may make additional contributions in
2009.
|
Environmental
Remediation Costs
We are
subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental
quality and pollution control. These laws and regulations require us to remove
or remedy the effect on the environment of the disposal or release of specified
substances at current and former operating sites.
Atlanta Gas
Light
The
presence of coal tar and certain other byproducts of a natural gas manufacturing
process used to produce natural gas prior to the 1950s has been identified at or
near 10 former Atlanta Gas Light operating sites in Georgia and at 3 sites of
predecessor companies in Florida. Atlanta Gas Light has active environmental
remediation or monitoring programs in effect at 10 of these sites. Two sites in
Florida are currently in the investigation or preliminary engineering design
phase, and one Georgia site has been deemed compliant with state
standards.
Atlanta
Gas Light has customarily reported estimates of future remediation costs for
these former sites based on probabilistic models of potential costs. These
estimates are reported on an undiscounted basis. As cleanup options and plans
mature and cleanup contracts are entered into, Atlanta Gas Light is better able
to provide conventional engineering estimates of the likely costs of remediation
at its former sites. These estimates contain various engineering uncertainties,
but Atlanta Gas Light continuously attempts to refine and update these
engineering estimates.
Atlanta
Gas Light’s current estimate for the remaining cost of future actions at its
former operating sites is $38 million, which may change depending on whether
future measures for groundwater will be required. As of December 31, 2008, we
have recorded a liability equal to the low end of the range of $38 million, of
which $10 million is expected to be incurred over the next 12
months.
These
liabilities do not include other potential expenses, such as unasserted property
damage claims, personal injury or natural resource damage claims, unbudgeted
legal expenses or other costs for which Atlanta Gas Light may be held liable but
for which it cannot reasonably estimate an amount.
The ERC
liability is included as a corresponding regulatory asset, which is a
combination of accrued ERC and unrecovered cash expenditures for investigation
and cleanup costs. Atlanta Gas Light has three ways of recovering investigation
and cleanup costs. First, the Georgia Commission has approved an ERC recovery
rider. The ERC recovery mechanism allows for recovery of expenditures over a
five-year period subsequent to the period in which the expenditures are
incurred. Atlanta Gas Light expects to collect $17 million in revenues over the
next 12 months under the ERC recovery rider, which is reflected as a current
asset. The amounts recovered from the ERC recovery rider during the last three
years were:
The
second way to recover costs is by exercising the legal rights Atlanta Gas Light
believes it has to recover a share of its costs from other potentially
responsible parties, typically former owners or operators of these sites. There
were no material recoveries from potentially responsible parties during 2008,
2007 or 2006.
The third
way to recover costs is from the receipt of net profits from the sale of
remediated property.
Elizabethtown
Gas
In New
Jersey, Elizabethtown Gas is currently conducting remediation activities with
oversight from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Although
we cannot estimate the actual total cost of future environmental investigation
and remediation efforts with precision, based on probabilistic models similar to
those used at Atlanta Gas Light’s former operating sites, the range of
reasonably possible costs is $58 million to $116 million. As of December 31,
2008, we have recorded a liability equal to the low end of that range, or $58
million, of which $7 million in expenditures are expected to be incurred over
the next 12 months.
Prudently
incurred remediation costs for the New Jersey properties have been authorized by
the New Jersey Commission to be recoverable in rates through a remediation
adjustment clause. As a result, Elizabethtown Gas has recorded a regulatory
asset of approximately $66 million, inclusive of interest, as of December 31,
2008, reflecting the future recovery of both incurred costs and accrued carrying
charges. Elizabethtown Gas expects to collect approximately $1 million in
revenues over the next 12 months. Elizabethtown Gas has also been successful in
recovering a portion of remediation costs incurred in New Jersey from its
insurance carriers and continues to pursue additional recovery.
We own a
site in Elizabeth City, North Carolina that is subject to a remediation order by
the North Carolina Department of Energy and Natural Resources. We had recorded
liabilities of $10 million as of December 31, 2008 and $11 million as of
December 31, 2007 related to this site.
There is
one other site in North Carolina where investigation and remediation is likely,
although no remediation order exists and we do not believe costs associated with
this site can be reasonably estimated. In addition, there are as many as six
other sites with which we had some association, although no basis for liability
has been asserted, and accordingly we have not accrued any remediation
liability. There are currently no cost recovery mechanisms for the environmental
remediation sites in North Carolina.
Rental
Expense
We
incurred rental expense in the amounts of $21 million in 2008, $21 million in
2007 and $19 million in 2006.
Litigation
We are
involved in litigation arising in the normal course of business. We believe the
ultimate resolution of such litigation will not have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.
In August
2006, the Office of Mineral Resources of the Louisiana DNR informed Jefferson
Island that its mineral lease – which authorizes salt extraction to create two
new storage caverns – at Lake Peigneur had been terminated. The Louisiana DNR
identified two bases for the termination: (1) failure to make certain mining
leasehold payments in a timely manner, and (2) the absence of salt mining
operations for six months.
In
September 2006, Jefferson Island filed suit against the State of
Louisiana, in the 19
th
Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, to maintain its lease to complete an
ongoing natural gas storage expansion project in Louisiana. The project would
add two salt dome storage caverns under Lake Peigneur to the two caverns
currently owned and operated by Jefferson Island. In its suit, Jefferson Island
alleges that the Louisiana DNR accepted all leasehold payments without
reservation and never provided Jefferson Island with notice and opportunity to
cure, as required by state law. In its answer to the suit, the State denied that
anyone with proper authority approved the late payments. As to the second basis
for termination, the suit contends that Jefferson Island’s lease with the State
of Louisiana was amended in 2004 so that mining operations are no longer
required to maintain the lease. The State’s answer denies that the 2004
amendment was properly authorized. In March 2008, Jefferson Island served
discovery requests on the State of Louisiana and sought a trial date in its
pending lawsuit over its natural gas storage expansion project at Lake Peigneur.
Jefferson Island also asserted additional claims against the State seeking to
obtain a declaratory ruling that Jefferson Island’s surface lease, under which
it operates its existing two storage caverns, authorizes the creation of the two
new expansion caverns separate and apart from the mineral lease challenged by
the State.
In
addition, in June 2008, the State of Louisiana passed legislation restricting
water usage from the Chicot aquifer, which is a main source of fresh water
required for the expansion of our Jefferson Island capacity. We contend that
this legislation is unconstitutional and have sought to amend the pending
litigation to seek a declaration that the legislation is invalid and cannot be
enforced. Even if we are not successful on those grounds, we believe the
legislation does not materially impact the feasibility of the expansion project.
If we are unable to reach a settlement, we are not able to predict the outcome
of the litigation. As of January 2009, our current estimate of costs incurred
that would be considered unusable if the Louisiana DNR was successful in
terminating our lease and causing us to cease the expansion project is
approximately $6 million.
In
February 2008, the consumer affairs staff of the Georgia Commission alleged that
GNG charged its customers on variable rate plans prices for natural gas that
were in excess of the published price, that it failed to give proper notice
regarding the availability of potentially lower price plans and that it changed
its methodology for computing variable rates. GNG asserted that it fully
complied with all applicable rules and regulations, that it properly charged its
customers on variable rate plans the rates on file with the Georgia Commission,
and that, consistent with its terms and conditions of service, it routinely
switched customers who requested to move to another price plan for which they
qualified. In order to resolve this matter GNG agreed to pay $2.5 million in the
form of credits to customers, or as directed by the Georgia Commission, which
was recorded in our statements of consolidated income for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
In
February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton
County in the State of Georgia against GNG containing similar allegations to
those asserted by the Georgia Commission staff and seeking damages on behalf of
a class of GNG customers. This lawsuit was dismissed in September 2008. In
October 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the
parties are in the process of filing briefs on that appeal.
In March
2008, a second class action suit was filed against GNG in the State Court of
Fulton County in the State of Georgia, regarding monthly service charges. This
lawsuit alleges that GNG arbitrarily assigned customer service charges rather
than basing each customer service charge on a specific credit score. GNG asserts
that no violation of law or Georgia Commission rules has occurred, that this
lawsuit is without merit and has filed motions to dismiss this class action suit
on various grounds. The ultimate resolution of this lawsuit cannot be
determined, but is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our
condensed consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.
Review
of Compliance with FERC Regulations
In 2008,
we conducted an internal review of our compliance with FERC interstate natural
gas pipeline capacity release rules and regulations. Independent of our internal
review, we also received data requests from FERC’s Office of Enforcement
relating specifically to compliance with FERC’s capacity release posting and
bidding requirements. We have responded to FERC’s data requests and are
fully cooperating with FERC in its investigation. As a result of this process,
we have identified certain instances of possible non-compliance. We are
committed to full regulatory compliance and we have met with the FERC
Enforcement staff to discuss with them these instances of possible
non-compliance. Accordingly we have accrued an appropriate estimate of possible
penalties assessed by the FERC. This estimate does not have, and management does
not believe the ultimate resolution will have, a material financial impact to
our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.
We have
two categories of income taxes in our statements of consolidated income: current
and deferred. Current income tax expense consists of federal and state income
tax less applicable tax credits related to the current year. Deferred income tax
expense generally is equal to the changes in the deferred income tax liability
and regulatory tax liability during the year.
Investment
and Other Tax Credits
Deferred
investment tax credits associated with distribution operations are included as a
regulatory liability in our consolidated balance sheets (see Note 1, “Accounting
Policies and Methods of Application”). These investment tax credits are being
amortized over the estimated life of the related properties as credits to income
in accordance with regulatory requirements. In 2007, we invested in a guaranteed
affordable housing tax credit fund. We reduce income tax expense in our
statements of consolidated income for the investment tax credits and other tax
credits associated with our nonregulated subsidiaries, including the affordable
housing credits. Components of income tax expense shown in the statements of
consolidated income are shown in the following table.
Income
Tax Expense
The
relative split between current and deferred taxes is due to a variety of factors
including true ups of prior year tax returns, and most importantly, the timing
of our property-related deductions.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Current
income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
37
|
|
|
$
|
86
|
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
State
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
State
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Amortization
of investment tax credits
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
132
|
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
|
$
|
129
|
|
The
reconciliations between the statutory federal income tax rate, the effective
rate and the related amount of tax for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007
and 2006 are presented in the following table.
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
of pretax income
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
of pretax income
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
of pretax income
|
|
Computed
tax expense at statutory rate
|
|
$
|
122
|
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
118
|
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
119
|
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
State
income tax, net of federal income tax benefit
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
Amortization
of investment tax credits
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
Affordable
housing credits
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Flexible
dividend deduction
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.6
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
Other
– net
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
Total
income tax expense at effective rate
|
|
$
|
132
|
|
|
|
37.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
127
|
|
|
|
37.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
129
|
|
|
|
37.8
|
%
|
Accumulated
Deferred Income Tax Assets and Liabilities
We report
some of our assets and liabilities differently for financial accounting purposes
than we do for income tax purposes. We report the tax effects of the differences
in those items as deferred income tax assets or liabilities in our consolidated
balance sheets. We measure the assets and liabilities using income tax rates
that are currently in effect. Because of the regulated nature of the utilities’
business, we recorded a regulatory tax liability in accordance with SFAS 109,
which we are amortizing over approximately 30 years (see
Note
1
“Accounting Policies and Methods of Application”). Our deferred tax assets
include $86 million related to an unfunded pension and postretirement benefit
obligation an increase of $51 million from 2007.
As
indicated in the following table, our deferred tax assets and liabilities
include certain items we acquired from NUI. We have provided a valuation
allowance for some of these items that reduce our net deferred tax assets to
amounts we believe are more likely than not to be realized in future periods.
With respect to our continuing operations, we have net operating losses in
various jurisdictions. Components that give rise to the net accumulated deferred
income tax liability are as follows.
|
|
As
of
December
31,
|
|
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
Accumulated
deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
– accelerated depreciation and other property-related
items
|
|
$
|
635
|
|
|
$
|
568
|
|
Mark
to market
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Total accumulated deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
672
|
|
|
|
616
|
|
Accumulated
deferred income tax assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
investment tax credits
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Unfunded
pension and postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Net
operating loss – NUI
(1)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Total accumulated deferred income tax assets
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
Valuation
allowances
(2)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Total
accumulated deferred income tax assets, net of valuation
allowance
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
Net
accumulated deferred tax liability
|
|
$
|
571
|
|
|
$
|
566
|
|
(2)
|
Valuation
allowance is due to the net operating losses on NUI headquarters that are
not usable in New Jersey.
|
Tax
Benefits
In June
2006, the FASB issued FIN 48, which addressed the determination of whether tax
benefits claimed or expected to be claimed on a tax return should be recorded in
the financial statements. Under FIN 48, we may recognize the tax benefit from an
uncertain tax position only if it is more likely than not that the tax position
will be sustained on examination by the taxing authorities, based on the
technical merits of the position. The tax benefits recognized in the financial
statements from such a position should be measured based on the largest benefit
that has a greater than fifty percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate
settlement. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification,
interest and penalties on income taxes, accounting in interim periods and
requires increased disclosures. We adopted the provisions of FIN 48 on January
1, 2007. At the date of adoption, as of December 31, 2007 and as of December 31,
2008, we did not have a liability for unrecognized tax benefits. Based on
current information, we do not anticipate that this will change materially in
2009.
We
recognize accrued interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions in
operating expenses in the consolidated statements of income, which is consistent
with the recognition of these items in prior reporting periods. As of December
31, 2008, we did not have a liability recorded for payment of interest and
penalties associated with uncertain tax positions.
We file a
U.S. federal consolidated income tax return and various state income tax
returns. We are no longer subject to income tax examinations by the Internal
Revenue Service or any state for years before 2002, but we are currently under
audit by the Internal Revenue Service for tax years 2006 and 2007.
Note
9 - Segment Information
We are an
energy services holding company whose principal business is the distribution of
natural gas in six states - Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee
and Virginia. We generate nearly all our operating revenues through the sale,
distribution, transportation and storage of natural gas. We are involved in
several related and complementary businesses, including retail natural gas
marketing to end-use customers primarily in Georgia; natural gas asset
management and related logistics activities for each of our utilities as well as
for nonaffiliated companies; natural gas storage arbitrage and related
activities; and the development and operation of high-deliverability natural gas
storage assets. We manage these businesses through four operating segments –
distribution operations, retail energy operations, wholesale services and energy
investments and a nonoperating corporate segment which includes intercompany
eliminations.
We
evaluate segment performance based primarily on the non-GAAP measure of EBIT,
which includes the effects of corporate expense allocations. EBIT is a non-GAAP
measure that includes operating income, other income and expenses and minority
interest. Items we do not include in EBIT are financing costs, including
interest and debt expense and income taxes, each of which we evaluate on a
consolidated level. We believe EBIT is a useful measurement of our performance
because it provides information that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness
of our businesses from an operational perspective, exclusive of the costs to
finance those activities and exclusive of income taxes, neither of which is
directly relevant to the efficiency of those operations.
You
should not consider EBIT an alternative to, or a more meaningful indicator of,
our operating performance than operating income or net income as determined in
accordance with GAAP. In addition, our EBIT may not be comparable to a similarly
titled measure of another company. The reconciliations of EBIT to operating
income, earnings before income taxes and net income for 2008, 2007 and 2006 are
presented below.
In
millions
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
2,322
|
|
|
|
2,005
|
|
|
|
2,133
|
|
Operating
income
|
|
|
478
|
|
|
|
489
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
Other
income (expense)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
EBIT
|
|
|
464
|
|
|
|
463
|
|
|
|
464
|
|
Interest
expense
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
Earnings
before income taxes
|
|
|
349
|
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
Income
taxes
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
127
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
211
|
|
|
$
|
212
|
|
Summarized
income statement, balance sheet and capital expenditure information by segment
as of and for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 is shown in the
following tables.
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
Corporate
and intercompany eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
AGL Resources
|
|
Operating
revenues from external parties
|
|
$
|
1,581
|
|
|
$
|
987
|
|
|
$
|
170
|
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
2,800
|
|
Intercompany revenues
(1)
|
|
|
187
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(187
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
operating revenues
|
|
|
1,768
|
|
|
|
987
|
|
|
|
170
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
(180
|
)
|
|
|
2,800
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of gas
|
|
|
950
|
|
|
|
838
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
(187
|
)
|
|
|
1,654
|
|
Operation
and maintenance
|
|
|
330
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
(4
|
)
|
|
|
472
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
128
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
152
|
|
Taxes
other than income taxes
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
1,443
|
|
|
|
911
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
(178
|
)
|
|
|
2,322
|
|
Operating
income (loss)
|
|
|
325
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
478
|
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
Other
income
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$
|
329
|
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
464
|
|
Identifiable
and total assets
|
|
$
|
5,138
|
|
|
$
|
315
|
|
|
$
|
970
|
|
|
$
|
353
|
|
|
$
|
(66
|
)
|
|
$
|
6,710
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
$
|
404
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
418
|
|
Capital
expenditures
|
|
$
|
278
|
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
75
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
372
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
Corporate
and intercompany eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
AGL Resources
|
|
Operating
revenues from external parties
|
|
$
|
1,477
|
|
|
$
|
892
|
|
|
$
|
83
|
|
|
$
|
42
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
2,494
|
|
Intercompany revenues
(1)
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
operating revenues
|
|
|
1,665
|
|
|
|
892
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
2,494
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of gas
|
|
|
845
|
|
|
|
704
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(188
|
)
|
|
|
1,369
|
|
Operation
and maintenance
|
|
|
330
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
451
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
122
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
Taxes
other than income taxes
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
1,330
|
|
|
|
779
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
(180
|
)
|
|
|
2,005
|
|
Operating
income (loss)
|
|
|
335
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
489
|
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
Other
income
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$
|
338
|
|
|
$
|
83
|
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
(7
|
)
|
|
$
|
463
|
|
Identifiable
and total assets
|
|
$
|
4,847
|
|
|
$
|
282
|
|
|
$
|
890
|
|
|
$
|
287
|
|
|
$
|
(48
|
)
|
|
$
|
6,258
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
$
|
406
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
420
|
|
Capital
expenditures
|
|
$
|
201
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
26
|
|
|
$
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
259
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
millions
|
|
Distribution
operations
|
|
|
Retail
energy operations
|
|
|
Wholesale
services
|
|
|
Energy
investments
|
|
|
Corporate
and intercompany eliminations
|
|
|
Consolidated
AGL Resources
|
|
Operating
revenues from external parties
|
|
$
|
1,467
|
|
|
$
|
930
|
|
|
$
|
182
|
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
2,621
|
|
Intercompany revenues
(1)
|
|
|
157
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(157
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Total
operating revenues
|
|
|
1,624
|
|
|
|
930
|
|
|
|
182
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
(156
|
)
|
|
|
2,621
|
|
Operating
expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
of gas
|
|
|
817
|
|
|
|
774
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
(157
|
)
|
|
|
1,482
|
|
Operation
and maintenance
|
|
|
350
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
473
|
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
Taxes
other than income taxes
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
Total
operating expenses
|
|
|
1,316
|
|
|
|
842
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
(148
|
)
|
|
|
2,133
|
|
Operating
income (loss)
|
|
|
308
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(8
|
)
|
|
|
488
|
|
Minority
interest
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(23
|
)
|
Other
income (expense)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
EBIT
|
|
$
|
310
|
|
|
$
|
63
|
|
|
$
|
90
|
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
(9
|
)
|
|
$
|
464
|
|
Identifiable
and total assets
|
|
$
|
4,565
|
|
|
$
|
293
|
|
|
$
|
830
|
|
|
$
|
373
|
|
|
$
|
62
|
|
|
$
|
6,123
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
$
|
406
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
-
|
|
|
$
|
420
|
|
Capital
expenditures
|
|
$
|
174
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
45
|
|
|
$
|
253
|
|
(1)
Intercompany revenues – Wholesale services records its energy marketing and risk
management revenue on a net basis. Wholesale services total operating revenues
include intercompany revenues of $982 million in 2008, $638 million in 2007 and
$531 million in 2006.
Our
quarterly financial data for 2008, 2007 and 2006 are summarized below. The
variance in our quarterly earnings is the result of the seasonal nature of our
primary business.
In
millions, except per share amounts
|
|
March
31
|
|
|
June
30
|
|
|
Sept.
30
|
|
|
Dec.
31
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
$
|
1,012
|
|
|
$
|
444
|
|
|
$
|
539
|
|
|
$
|
805
|
|
Operating
income
|
|
|
188
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
158
|
|
Net
income (loss)
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
Basic
earnings (loss) per share
|
|
|
1.17
|
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
|
|
0.97
|
|
Diluted
earnings (loss) per share
|
|
|
1.16
|
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
|
|
0.85
|
|
|
|
0.97
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
$
|
973
|
|
|
$
|
467
|
|
|
$
|
369
|
|
|
$
|
685
|
|
Operating
income
|
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
Net
income
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
Basic
earnings per share
|
|
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
|
|
0.86
|
|
Diluted
earnings per share
|
|
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
|
|
0.86
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
revenues
|
|
$
|
1,044
|
|
|
$
|
436
|
|
|
$
|
434
|
|
|
$
|
707
|
|
Operating
income
|
|
|
228
|
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
Net
income
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
47
|
|
Basic
earnings per share
|
|
|
1.42
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
0.46
|
|
|
|
0.60
|
|
Diluted
earnings per share
|
|
|
1.41
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
|
0.46
|
|
|
|
0.60
|
|
Our basic
and diluted earnings per common share are calculated based on the weighted daily
average number of common shares and common share equivalents outstanding during
the quarter. Those totals differ from the basic and diluted earnings per share
shown in the statements of consolidated income, which are based on the weighted
average number of common shares and common share equivalents outstanding during
the entire year.
None
Conclusions
Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Under the
supervision and with the participation of our management, including our
principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an
evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined
under Rule 13a-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the Exchange Act). No system of controls, no matter how
well-designed and operated, can provide absolute assurance that the objectives
of the system of controls are met, and no evaluation of controls can provide
assurance that the system of controls has operated effectively in all cases. Our
disclosure controls and procedures however are designed to provide reasonable
assurance that the objectives of disclosure controls and procedures are
met.
Based on
this evaluation, our principal executive officer and our principal financial
officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as
of December 31, 2008, in providing a reasonable level of assurance that
information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under
the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods in SEC rules and forms, including a reasonable level of assurance that
information required to be disclosed by us in such reports is accumulated and
communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and
our principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There
were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting identified in
connection with the above-referenced evaluation by management of the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2008, that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control
over financial reporting.
Reports
of Management and Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting
Management
has assessed, and our independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, has audited, our internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2008. The unqualified reports of management and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP thereon are included in
Item 8
of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are
incorporated by reference herein.
None
PART
III
The
information required by this item with respect to directors will be set forth
under the captions “Proposal I -Election of Directors”, - “Corporate Governance
- Ethics and Compliance Program,” – “Committees of the Board” and “- Audit
Committee” in the Proxy Statement for our 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or
in a subsequent amendment to this report. The information required by this item
with respect to the executive officers is set forth at Part I, Item 4 of this
report under the caption “Executive Officers of the Registrant.” The information
required by this item with respect to Section 16(a) beneficial ownership
reporting compliance will be set forth under the caption “Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in the Proxy Statement or subsequent
amendment referred to above. All such information that is provided in the Proxy
Statement is incorporated herein by reference.
The
information required by this item will be set forth under the captions
“Compensation and Management Development Committee Report,” “Compensation and
Management Development Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation,”
“Director Compensation,” “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “Executive
Compensation” in the Proxy Statement or subsequent amendment referred to in Item
10 above. All such information that is provided in the Proxy Statement is
incorporated herein by reference, except for the information under the caption
“Compensation and Management Development Committee Report” which is specifically
not so incorporated herein by reference.
The
information required by this item will be set forth under the captions “Share
Ownership” and “Executive Compensation -- Equity Compensation Plan Information”
in the Proxy Statement or subsequent amendment referred to in
Item 10
above. All such information that is provided in the
Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.
The
information required by this item will be set forth under the captions
“Corporate Governance – Director Independence” and “- Policy on Related Person
Transactions” and “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” in the Proxy
Statement or subsequent amendment referred to in
Item 10
above. All such information that is provided in the Proxy Statement is
incorporated herein by reference.
The
information required by this item will be set forth under the caption “Proposal
3 – Ratification of the Appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as Our
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 2009” in the Proxy Statement
or subsequent amendment to referred to in
Item 10
above.
All such information that is provided in the Proxy Statement is incorporated
herein by reference.
PART
IV
(a) Documents
Filed as Part of This Report.
(1) Financial
Statements
Included in Item 8 are the
following:
|
·
|
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm
|
·
|
Management’s
Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
|
·
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2008 and
2007
|
·
|
Statements
of Consolidated Income for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and
2006
|
·
|
Statements
of Consolidated Common Shareholders’ Equity for the years ended December
31, 2008, 2007 and 2006
|
·
|
Statements
of Consolidated Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007,
and 2006
|
·
|
Notes
to Consolidated Financial
Statements
|
(2) Financial
Statement Schedules
Financial
Statement Schedule II. Valuation and Qualifying Accounts - Allowance for
Uncollectible Accounts and Income Tax Valuations for Each of the Three Years in
the Period Ended December 31, 2008.
Schedules
other than those referred to above are omitted and are not applicable or not
required, or the required information is shown in the financial statements or
notes thereto.
(3) Exhibits
Where an
exhibit is filed by incorporation by reference to a previously filed
registration statement or report, such registration statement or report is
identified in parentheses.
3.1
|
Amended
and Restated Articles of Incorporation filed November 2, 2005, with the
Secretary of State of the state of Georgia (Exhibit 3.1, AGL Resources
Inc. Form 8-K dated November 2, 2005).
|
|
|
3.2
|
Bylaws,
as amended on December 10, 2008 (Exhibit 3.2, AGL Resources, Inc. Form 8-K
dated December 16, 2008).
|
|
|
|
4.1.a
|
Specimen
form of Common Stock certificate (Exhibit 4.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007).
|
|
4.1.b
|
Specimen
AGL Capital Corporation 6.00% Senior Notes due 2034 (Exhibit 4.1, AGL
Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated September 27, 2004).
|
|
|
4.1.c
|
Specimen
AGL Capital Corporation 4.95% Senior Notes due 2015. (Exhibit 4.1, AGL
Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated December 21, 2004).
|
|
|
4.1.d
|
Specimen
AGL Capital Corporation 6.375% Senior Secured Notes due 2016. (Exhibit
4.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated December 11,
2007).
|
|
|
4.1.e
|
Specimen
AGL Capital Corporation 7.125% Senior Secured Notes due 2011 (Exhibit
4.1.f, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2007).
|
|
|
4.1.f
|
Specimen
AGL Capital Corporation 4.45% Senior Secured Notes due 2013 (Exhibit
4.1.g, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2007).
|
|
|
4.2.a
|
Indenture,
dated as of December 1, 1989, between Atlanta Gas Light Company and
Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee (Exhibit 4(a), Atlanta Gas Light Company
registration statement on Form S-3, No. 33-32274).
|
4.2.b
|
First
Supplemental Indenture dated as of March 16, 1992, between Atlanta Gas
Light Company and NationsBank of Georgia, National Association, as
Successor Trustee (Exhibit 4(a), Atlanta Gas Light Company registration
statement on Form S-3, No. 33-46419).
|
|
|
4.2.c
|
Indenture,
dated February 20, 2001 among AGL Capital Corporation, AGL Resources Inc.
and The Bank of New York, as Trustee (Exhibit 4.2, AGL Resources Inc.
registration statement on Form S-3, filed on September 17, 2001, No.
333-69500).
|
|
|
4.3.b
|
Form
of Guarantee of AGL Resources Inc. dated as of September 27, 2004
regarding the AGL Capital Corporation 6.00% Senior Note due 2034 (Exhibit
4.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated September 27,
2004).
|
|
|
4.3.c
|
Form
of Guarantee of AGL Resources Inc. dated as of December 20, 2004 regarding
the AGL Capital Corporation 4.95% Senior Note due 2015 (Exhibit 4.1, AGL
Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated December 21, 2004).
|
|
|
4.3.d
|
Form
of Guarantee of AGL Resources Inc. dated as of March 31, 2001 regarding
the AGL Capital Corporation 7.125% Senior Note due 2011 (Exhibit 4.3.d,
AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2007).
|
|
|
|
|
4.3.e
|
Form
of Guarantee of AGL Resources Inc. dated as of July 2, 2003 regarding the
AGL Capital Corporation 4.45% Senior Note due 2013 (Exhibit 4.3.e, AGL
Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2007).
|
|
|
10.1
|
Director
and Executive Compensation Contracts, Plans and
Arrangements.
|
|
|
Director
Compensation Contracts, Plans and Arrangements
|
|
|
10.1.a
|
AGL
Resources Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Non-Employee Directors Equity
Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002).
|
|
|
10.1.b
|
First
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Non-Employee
Directors Equity Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.1.o, AGL Resources Inc.
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002).
|
|
|
10.1.c
|
Second
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Non-Employee
Directors Equity Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.1.k, AGL Resources Inc.
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.d
|
AGL
Resources Inc. 2006 Non-Employee Directors Equity Compensation Plan
(incorporated herein by reference to Annex C of the AGL Resources Inc.
Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders held May 3, 2006
filed on March 20, 2006).
|
|
|
10.1.e
|
First
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 2006 Non-Employee Directors Equity
Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.1.i, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.f
|
Second
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 2006 Non-Employee Directors Equity
Compensation Plan.
|
|
|
10.1.g
|
AGL
Resources Inc. 1998 Common Stock Equivalent Plan for Non-Employee
Directors (Exhibit 10.1.b, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended December 31, 1997).
|
|
|
10.1.h
|
First
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 1998 Common Stock Equivalent Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.5, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2000).
|
|
|
10.1.i
|
Second
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 1998 Common Stock Equivalent Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.4, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002).
|
|
|
10.1.j
|
Third
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 1998 Common Stock Equivalent Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.5, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002).
|
|
|
10.1.k
|
Fourth
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 1998 Common Stock Equivalent Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.1.m, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.l
|
Fifth
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 1998 Common Stock Equivalent Plan for
Non-Employee Directors.
|
|
|
10.1.m
|
Description
of Directors’ Compensation (Exhibit 10.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form 8-K
dated December 1, 2004).
|
|
|
10.1.n
|
Form
of Stock Award Agreement for Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.1.aj, AGL
Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2004).
|
|
|
10.1.o
|
Form
on Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement for Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit
10.1.ak, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004).
|
|
|
10.1.p
|
Form
of Director Indemnification Agreement, dated April 28, 2004, between AGL
Resources Inc., on behalf of itself and the Indemnities named therein
(Exhibit 10.3, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2004).
|
Executive
Compensation Contracts, Plans and Arrangements
10.1.aa
|
AGL
Resources Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (1999), as amended and restated as
of January 1, 2002 (Exhibit 99.2, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2002).
|
|
|
10.1.ab
|
First
amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (1999), as
amended and restated (Exhibit 10.1.b, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004).
|
|
|
10.1.ac
|
Second
amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (1999), as
amended and restated (Exhibit 10.1.l, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.ad
|
Third
amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (1999), as
amended and restated.
|
|
|
10.1.ae
|
AGL
Resources Inc. Officer Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.2, AGL Resources Inc.
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001).
|
|
|
10.1.af
|
First
amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. Officer Incentive Plan (Exhibit
10.1.j, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2007).
|
|
|
10.1.ag
|
Second
amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. Officer Incentive
Plan.
|
|
|
10.1.ah
|
AGL
Resources Inc. 2007 Omnibus Performance Incentive Plan (Annex A of AGL
Resources Inc.’s Schedule 14A, File No. 001-14174, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.ai
|
First
Amendment to the AGL Resources Inc. 2007 Omnibus Performance Incentive
Plan.
|
|
|
10.1.aj
|
Form
of Incentive Stock Option Agreement - AGL Resources Inc. 2007 Omnibus
Performance Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.1.b, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.ak
|
Form
of Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement - AGL Resources Inc. 2007 Omnibus
Performance Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.1.c, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.al
|
Form
of Performance Cash Award Agreement - AGL Resources Inc. 2007 Omnibus
Performance Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.1.d, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.am
|
Form
of Restricted Stock Agreement (performance based) - AGL Resources Inc.
2007 Omnibus Performance Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.1.e, AGL Resources
Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.an
|
Form
of Restricted Stock Agreement (time based) - AGL Resources Inc. 2007
Omnibus Performance Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.1.f, AGL Resources Inc.
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.ao
|
Form
of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement - AGL Resources Inc. 2007 Omnibus
Performance Incentive Plan. (Exhibit 10.1.g, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007)
|
|
|
10.1.ap
|
Form
of Stock Appreciation Rights Agreement - AGL Resources Inc. 2007 Omnibus
Performance Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.1.h, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.aq
|
Form
of Incentive Stock Option Agreement, Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement
and Restricted Stock Agreement for key employees (Exhibit 10.1, AGL
Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2004).
|
|
|
10.1.ar
|
Form
of Performance Unit Agreement for key employees (Exhibit 10.1.e, AGL
Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2004).
|
|
|
10.1.as
|
Forms
of Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement without the reload provision (LTIP
and Officer Plan) (Exhibit 10.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated March
15, 2005).
|
|
|
10.1.at
|
Form
of Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with the reload provision (Officer
Plan) (Exhibit 10.2, AGL Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated March 15,
2005).
|
|
|
10.1.au
|
Form
of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and Performance Cash Unit Agreement for
key employees (Exhibit 10.1 and 10.2, respectively, AGL Resources Inc.
Form 8-K dated February 24, 2006).
|
|
|
10.1.av
|
AGL
Resources Inc. Nonqualified Savings Plan as amended and restated as of
January 1, 2009.
|
|
|
10.1.aw
|
AGL
Resources Inc. Annual Incentive Plan - 2007 (Exhibit 10.1, AGL Resources
Inc. Form 8-K dated August 6, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.ax
|
Description
of Annual Incentive Compensation Arrangement for Douglas N. Schantz
(Exhibit 10.1.ax, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007).
|
|
|
10.1.ay
|
Description
of Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for John W. Somerhalder
II.
|
|
|
10.1.az
|
AGL
Resources Inc. Excess Benefit Plan as amended and restated as of January
1, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
10.1.ba
|
Continuity
Agreement, dated December 1, 2007, by and between AGL Resources Inc., on
behalf of itself and AGL Services Company (its wholly owned subsidiary)
and John W. Somerhalder (Exhibit 10.1.a AGL Resources, Inc. Form 8-K dated
January 8, 2008).
|
|
|
|
|
10.1.bb
|
Continuity
Agreement, dated December 1, 2007, by and between AGL Resources Inc., on
behalf of itself and AGL Services Company (its wholly owned subsidiary)
and Andrew W. Evans (Exhibit 10.1.b AGL Resources, Inc. Form 8-K dated
January 8, 2008).
|
|
|
|
|
10.1.bc
|
Continuity
Agreement, dated December 1, 2007, by and between AGL Resources Inc., on
behalf of itself and AGL Services Company (its wholly owned subsidiary)
and Kevin P. Madden (Exhibit 10.1.c AGL Resources, Inc. Form 8-K dated
January 8, 2008).
|
|
|
|
|
10.1.bd
|
Continuity
Agreement, dated December 1, 2007, by and between AGL Resources Inc., on
behalf of itself and AGL Services Company (its wholly owned subsidiary)
and Douglas N. Schantz (Exhibit 10.1.d AGL Resources, Inc. Form 8-K dated
January 8, 2008).
|
|
|
|
|
10.1.be
|
Continuity
Agreement, dated December 1, 2007, by and between AGL Resources Inc., on
behalf of itself and AGL Services Company (its wholly owned subsidiary)
and Paul R. Shlanta (Exhibit 10.1.bl, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007).
|
|
|
|
|
10.1.bf
|
Form
of AGL Resources Inc. Executive Post Employment Medical Benefit Plan
(Exhibit 10.1.d, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2003).
|
|
10.1.bg
|
Description
of compensation for each of John W. Somerhalder, Andrew W. Evans, Kevin P.
Madden, Douglas N. Schantz and Paul R. Shlanta (incorporated herein by
reference to the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of the AGL
Resources Inc. Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders held
April 30, 2008 filed on March 19,
2008).
|
10.2
|
Guaranty
Agreement, effective December 13, 2005, by and between Atlanta Gas Light
Company and AGL Resources Inc. (Exhibit 10.2, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007).
|
|
|
10.3
|
Form
of Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement between AGL Capital Corporation, as
Issuer, AGL Resources Inc., as Guarantor, and the Dealers named therein,
dated September 25, 2000 (Exhibit 10.79, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000).
|
|
|
10.4
|
Guarantee
of AGL Resources Inc., dated October 5, 2000, of payments on promissory
notes issued by AGL Capital Corporation (AGLCC) pursuant to the Issuing
and Paying Agency Agreement dated September 25, 2000, between AGLCC and
The Bank of New York (Exhibit 10.80, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2000).
|
|
|
10.5
|
Issuing
and Paying Agency Agreement, dated September 25, 2000, between AGL Capital
Corporation and The Bank of New York. (Exhibit 10.81, AGL Resources Inc.
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2000).
|
|
|
10.6.a
|
Amended
and Restated Master Environmental Management Services Agreement, dated
July 25, 2002 by and between Atlanta Gas Light Company and The RETEC
Group, Inc. (Exhibit 10.2, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2003). (Confidential treatment pursuant to 17 CFR Sections
200.80 (b) and 240.24-b has been granted regarding certain portions of
this exhibit, which portions have been filed separately with the
Commission).
|
|
|
10.6.b
|
Modification
to the Amended and Restated Master Environmental Management Services
Agreement, dated July 25, 2002 by and between Atlanta Gas Light Company
and The RETEC Group, Inc.
|
|
|
10.6.c
|
Term
Extension to the Amended and Restated Master Environmental Management
Services Agreement, dated July 25, 2002 by and between Atlanta Gas Light
Company and The RETEC Group, Inc.
|
|
|
10.6.d
|
Modification
to the Amended and Restated Master Environmental Management Services
Agreement, dated July 25, 2002 by and between Atlanta Gas Light Company
and The RETEC Group, Inc.
|
|
|
10.6.e
|
Second
Modification to the Amended and Restated Master Environmental Management
Services Agreement, dated July 25, 2002 by and between Atlanta Gas Light
Company and The RETEC Group, Inc.
|
|
|
10.6.f
|
Third Modification
to the Amended and Restated Master Environmental Management Services
Agreement, dated July 25, 2002 by and between Atlanta Gas Light Company
and The RETEC Group, Inc.
|
|
|
10.7
|
Credit
Agreement dated as of August 31, 2006, by and among AGL Resources Inc.,
AGL Capital Corporation, SunTrust Bank, as administrative agent, Wachovia
Bank, National Association, as syndication agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. and Calyon New York Branch,
as co-documentation agents, and the several other banks and other
financial institutions named therein (Exhibit 10, AGL Resources Inc. Form
8-K dated August 31, 2006).
|
|
|
10.8
|
SouthStar
Energy Services LLC Amended and Restated Agreement, dated April 1, 2004 by
and between Georgia Natural Gas Company and Piedmont Energy Company
(Exhibit 10, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004).
|
|
|
10.9
|
Letter
of Credit and Security Agreement dated as of September 4, 2008 by and
among Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. as borrower, AGL Resources Inc. as
Guarantor, Bank of America, N.A. as Administrative Agent, The Bank of
Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, LTD. as Syndication Agent and Bank of America, N.A.
as Issuing Bank (Exhibit 10.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008).
|
|
|
10.10
|
Credit
Agreement as of September 30, 2008 by and among AGL Resources Inc., AGL
Capital Corporation, Wachovia Bank, N.A. as Administrative Agent, Wachovia
Capital Markets, LLC as sole lead arranger and sole lead bookrunner.
SunTrust Bank, NA, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, LTD., Calyon New
York Brand and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC as Co-Documentation
Agents (Exhibit 10.1, AGL Resources Inc. Form 8-K dated September 30,
2008).
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
AGL
Resources Inc. Code of Ethics for its Chief Executive Officer and its
Senior Financial Officers (Exhibit 14, AGL Resources Inc. Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2004).
|
|
|
21
|
Subsidiaries
of AGL Resources Inc.
|
|
|
23
|
Consent
of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, independent registered public accounting
firm.
|
|
|
24
|
Powers
of Attorney (included on signature page hereto).
|
|
|
31.1
|
Certification
of John W. Somerhalder II pursuant to Rule 13a – 14(a).
|
|
|
31.2
|
Certification
of Andrew W. Evans pursuant to Rule 13a – 14(a).
|
|
|
32.1
|
Certification
of John W. Somerhalder II pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350.
|
|
|
32.2
|
Certification
of Andrew W. Evans pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
|
|
|
(b)
|
Exhibits
filed as part of this report.
|
|
|
|
See
Item 15(a)(3).
|
|
|
(c)
|
Financial
statement schedules filed as part of this report.
See
Item 15(a)(2).
|
In
accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned; thereunto duly authorized, on February 5, 2009.
AGL
RESOURCES INC.
By:
/s/ John W. Somerhalder
II
John W.
Somerhalder II
Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
Power
of Attorney
KNOW ALL
MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below
constitutes and appoints John W. Somerhalder II, Andrew W. Evans, Paul R.
Shlanta and Bryan E. Seas, and each of them, his or her true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any
and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents
and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been
signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the
capacities indicated as of February 5, 2009.
Signatures
|
Title
|
|
|
/s/ John W. Somerhalder II
|
Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
John
W. Somerhalder II
|
|
|
/s/ Andrew W. Evans
|
Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal
Financial Officer)
|
Andrew
W. Evans
|
|
|
/s/ Bryan E. Seas
|
Senior
Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer)
|
Bryan
E. Seas
|
|
|
/s/ Sandra N. Bane
|
Director
|
Sandra
N. Bane
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas D. Bell, Jr.
|
Director
|
Thomas
D. Bell, Jr.
|
|
|
/s/ Charles R. Crisp
|
Director
|
Charles
R. Crisp
|
|
/s/ Arthur E. Johnson
|
Director
|
Arthur
E. Johnson
|
|
|
/s/ Wyck A. Knox, Jr.
|
Director
|
Wyck
A. Knox, Jr.
|
|
|
|
/s/ Dennis M. Love
Dennis
M. Love
|
Director
|
|
|
/s/ Charles H. McTier
|
Director
|
Charles
H. McTier
|
|
|
|
/s/ Dean R. O’Hare
|
Director
|
Dean
R. O’Hare
|
|
|
|
/s/ D. Raymond Riddle
|
Director
|
D.
Raymond Riddle
|
|
|
|
/s/ James A. Rubright
|
Director
|
James
A. Rubright
|
|
|
|
/s/ Felker W. Ward, Jr.
|
Director
|
Felker
W. Ward, Jr.
|
|
|
|
/s/ Bettina M. Whyte
|
Director
|
Bettina
M. Whyte
|
|
|
|
/s/ Henry C. Wolf
|
Director
|
Henry
C. Wolf
|
|
AGL
Resources Inc. and Subsidiaries
VALUATION
AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS - ALLOWANCE FOR UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS AND INCOME TAX
VALUATION FOR EACH OF THE THREE YEARS IN THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
2008.
In
millions
|
|
|
Allowance
for uncollectible accounts
|
|
|
|
Income
tax valuation
|
|
Balance
at December 31, 2005
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
9
|
|
Provisions
charged to income in 2006
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Accounts
written off as uncollectible, net in 2006
|
|
|
(22
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Decrease
due to change in circumstances
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
(6
|
)
|
Balance
at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Provisions
charged to income in 2007
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Accounts
written off as uncollectible, net in 2007
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Balance
at December 31, 2007
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Provisions
charged to income in 2008
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
Accounts
written off as uncollectible, net in 2008
|
|
|
(25
|
)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Balance
at December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
16
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
Atlanta Gas Light (NYSE:ATG)
과거 데이터 주식 차트
부터 2월(2) 2025 으로 3월(3) 2025
Atlanta Gas Light (NYSE:ATG)
과거 데이터 주식 차트
부터 3월(3) 2024 으로 3월(3) 2025