DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report 2000 ANNUAL REPORT 2000 CMS Energy Electric Utility Gas Utility CMS Energy is an integrated energy company with Oil and Gas a strong asset base enhanced by an active Gas Transmission marketing, services and trading capability. Our growth Independent Power Production strategy is focused upon wholesale customers in International Energy the central United States from the Great Lakes to Distribution Marketing, Services, the Gulf of Mexico to the Rocky Mountains, where Trading we own and operate extensive natural gas and electric businesses. We also develop and operate international energy projects in selected areas of high growth and opportunity. Our capabilities include: • Oil and gas exploration and production • Liquefied natural gas importation and processing • Gas gathering, processing, storage and transportation • Electricity generation and transmission • Electricity and natural gas distribution • Energy marketing and trading, and energy management services Sustainable Pretax Operating Income ($ millions) Electric Utility Gas Utility Gas Independent Other Transmission Power Nonregulated** Production 494 481 227 189 160 132 148 98 61 34 99 00 99 00 99* 00 99 00* 99 00 * Excludes Loy Yang (2000) and Nitrotec (1999) write-offs ** Includes oil and gas exploration and production; marketing, services and trading; and international energy distribution businesses Financial Highlights Millions of Dollars, Except as Noted Percent December 31 2000 1999 Change REVENUE Electric utility $ 2,676 $ 2,667 0.3 Gas utility 1,196 1,156 3.5 Independent power production (a) 1,171 1,073 9.1 Natural gas transmission (a) 1,053 895 17.7 Oil and gas exploration and production (b) 155 143 8.4 Marketing, services and trading (a) 4,442 1,320 236.5 International energy distribution (a) 265 307 (13.7) Other 30 31 (3.2) Total revenue (a)(b) $10,988 $ 7,592 44.7 Consolidated revenue $ 8,998 $ 6,103 47.4 Consolidated net income $ 36 $ 277 (87.0) Net income attributable to: CMS Energy common stock $ 36 $ 269 (86.6) Class G common stock – 8 – Net income before losses on investments (c) $ 304 $ 318 (4.4) Effects of losses on investments in LoyYang (268) – – Effects of losses on investments in Nitrotec – (49) – Net income attributable to CMS Energy common stock $ 36 $ 269 (86.6) Per common share (c) Diluted earnings per average common share: Earnings per share after reconciling items $ .32 $ 2.17 (85.3) Effects of losses on investments in LoyYang 2.37 – – Nonsustainable level of gains from asset sales (.20) – – Cumulative effect of change in accounting for inventories .04 – – Effects of losses on investments in Nitrotec – .43 – Effects of Class G common stock exchange – .25 – Earnings per share before reconciling items $ 2.53 $ 2.85 (11.2) Dividends declared $ 1.46 $ 1.39 5.0 Book value $ 19.48 $ 21.17 (8.0) Market value (year-end) $ 31.69 $ 31.19 1.6 (a) Includes CMS Energy’s share of unconsolidated revenue. (b) Before intercompany eliminations. (c) Refer to Management’s Discussion and Analysis for an explanation of the reconciling items. CMS Energy Corporation 1 To Our Shareholders Right to left: William T. McCormick Jr., chairman and chief executive officer; Alan M. Wright, executive vice president, chief financial officer and chief administrative officer; David W. Joos, executive vice president and chief operating officer– electric; and William J. Haener, executive vice president and chief operating officer– gas. The year 2000 was a difficult one for CMS Energy, but it ended in a very positive way. It began with the company facing continued uncertainty with respect Sustainable to electric utility restructuring, underperformance of several international Earnings per Share (Dollars) assets, a weak balance sheet, and rising interest rates and utility 2.75 purchased gas costs. 2.50 2.53 During the year, we worked hard to address each of these problems, as well as to sharpen our strategies for future growth. We also exceeded our year 2000 sustainable earnings commitment of $2.50/share, excluding the one-time $268 million write-down of the Loy Yang power plant in Australia. Target Actual Target 00 00 01 Significantly, we resolved a number of major uncertainties and problems in 2000 to clear the way for reliable growth in the future. We: • Worked with legislators and regulators to pass electric restructuring legislation in Michigan, which resolved a pending rate complaint and provided for full recovery of stranded costs, securitization and no mandatory power plant divestitures. • Disposed of $1.2 billion of nonstrategic assets and consolidated debt, thus improving our domestic and international focus. 2 CMS Energy Corporation • Wrote off our Loy Yang investment, eliminating future operating losses. • Gained approval from the Michigan Public Service Commission to blend high-cost purchased gas with lower-cost inventory gas for the remaining period of our gas utility rate freeze, which ends March 31. At year-end, we also put in place a new top operating management team: Dave Joos and Bill Haener, who share the chief operating officer role for electric and gas businesses, respectively. Our comprehensive financial improvement plan deserves more detailed attention, so I have asked Al Wright, our chief financial officer and the executive responsible for executing the plan, to provide a detailed explanation, which begins on page 28. Operationally, all of the company’s energy businesses are now prospering and put us in a strong position for future growth. For the first time in many years, Consumers Energy does not face major regulatory issues. Most important, the issue of electric restructuring has been favorably and finally resolved in a way that benefits customers without penalizing shareholders. Beginning next year, all of Consumers Energy’s electricity customers will be able to choose a different supplier. The utility will continue to deliver the energy as it does now, maintain its highly reliable distribution system, and sell electricity to those customers who prefer us to be their supplier. The company will be allowed full recovery of stranded costs, and will not be required to sell any of its generating plants. Although residential electricity customers were given a 5 percent rate reduction, beginning last October we are allowed to fully offset that revenue As part of our financial improvement plan, loss with securitization benefits. Securitization bonds essentially the company in 2000 refinance existing utility debt with lower-cost, longer-term debt, sold a number of underperforming or yielding annual savings that offset the rate reduction. nonstrategic assets such as the Lakewood plant (top), and wrote In every state contemplating customer choice, citizens are understandably off our investment in Loy Yang Power in worried about whether they will face the power blackouts and soaring Australia (bottom). electricity prices that are plaguing California. In Michigan, the answer is no. Legislators, regulators and utility officials worked together to design legislation that avoids the mistakes made in California. CMS Energy Corporation 3 Michigan also is bringing choice to natural gas customers. Consumers Energy has operated a three-year pilot program in which 150,000 customers participated. The pilot is being replaced by a phase-in of permanent choice for all customers. During the pilot, we froze the price of natural gas for our customers at $2.84 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) through the end of March 2001. Last year, gas prices rose nationwide to unprecedented levels – the average cost this past winter rose to about $6.50 per Mcf and January market prices soared to $10 per Mcf. We were able to purchase gas at an average of $3.85 per Mcf. The gas price freeze ends with the pilot program, and we are returning to a system that fully compensates us for the cost of gas purchased to serve our utility customers. The gas price freeze (versus our higher supply cost), a five-month delay between the electric rate reduction and the start of the offset associated with securitization, and unusually mild summer temperatures contributed to an 8 percent decrease in Consumers Energy’s earnings during 2000. Sustainable operating earnings were $579 million, compared to $626 million the year before. Meanwhile, sustainable operating earnings of our nonutility, diversified energy businesses grew 39 percent to $477 million, compared with As part of deregulation, $342 million in 1999. Much of this increase is the benefit of the first Consumers Energy is full year of earnings from the CMS Panhandle Companies, including implementing programs that allow gas and electricity liquefied natural gas (LNG) operations, which were acquired at the end customers to choose their of the first quarter of 1999. Our international power plants – including energy supplier. 940 megawatts (MW) of new capacity – also increased earnings, and our exploration and production business benefited from higher oil and natural gas prices as well as increased production. Other significant developments for the company in 2000 included: • The third unit at the coal-fired Jorf Lasfar power plant in Morocco began commercial operation, and the fourth and final unit started operating early in 2001, bringing the plant’s total capacity to 1,356 MW. It is the largest independent power plant in Africa. • The first two gas-fueled generating units began operating at the 720 MW Al Taweelah A2 power and desalination facility in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 4 CMS Energy Corporation • The acquisition of the 445-mile Sea Robin pipeline, a gas and Stock Price at Year-end condensate pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Louisiana, was (Dollars) completed. With a capacity of 1 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day, it 48.44 provides additional gas supply gathering resources to the CMS 31.69 Trunkline pipeline system. 31.19 • The CMS Trunkline LNG regasification facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana, received 55 cargoes, more than doubling the 27 cargoes received in 1999.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ET Rover Pipeline
    ROVER PIPELINE LLC Rover Pipeline Project RESOURCE REPORT 10 Alternatives FERC Docket No. CP15-___-000 February 2015 ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT Resource Report 10 – Alternatives TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 10.0 ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................................. 10-2 10.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 10-3 10.3.1 Energy Conservation ...................................................................................................... 10-5 10.3.1.1 West Virginia .............................................................................................. 10-5 10.3.1.2 Pennsylvania .............................................................................................. 10-6 10.3.1.3 Ohio ............................................................................................................ 10-6 10.3.1.4 Michigan..................................................................................................... 10-7 10.3.2 Non-Gas Energy Alternatives ........................................................................................ 10-7 10.3.2.1 Fossil Fuels ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM for the YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 February 19, 2016
    ENBRIDGE INC. ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 February 19, 2016 Enbridge Inc. 2015 Annual Information Form TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE As of the date hereof, portions of the MD&A and the audited consolidated financial statements of Enbridge as at and for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the securities commissions or similar authorities in each of the provinces of Canada, as detailed below, are specifically incorporated by reference into and form an integral part of this AIF. These documents are available on SEDAR which can be accessed at www.sedar.com. Page Reference From Annual Financial AIF Statements MD&A GLOSSARY ................................................................................................... 1 PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION ........................................................... 4 12 FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION .........................................................5 CORPORATE STRUCTURE ......................................................................... 6 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS ............................................ 7 1-2, 14-19 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS ....................................... 10 2-4, 8-9, 16-21, 23-39, 59-60, 67-69, 73-74 LIQUIDS PIPELINES ................................................................................... 16 1, 40-52 GAS DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................... 17 1, 52-55 GAS PIPELINES, PROCESSING AND ENERGY SERVICES
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC
    153 FERC ¶ 61,300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC Docket Nos. CP14-119-000 Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC and CP14-120-000 Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC CP14-122-000 ORDER GRANTING SECTION 3 AND SECTION 7 AUTHORIZATIONS AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT (Issued December 17, 2015) 1. On March 25, 2014, Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC (Lake Charles LNG Export) and Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC (Lake Charles LNG)1 jointly filed an application in Docket No. CP14-120-000 [hereinafter Liquefaction Docket], pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).2 Lake Charles LNG Export and Lake Charles LNG seek authorization to site, construct, and operate new facilities for the liquefaction and export of natural gas (Liquefaction Facilities), to be located adjacent to Lake Charles LNG’s existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana (terminal); and to modify and construct certain facilities (Modified Facilities) at the terminal (the Liquefaction Project). 1 On September 19, 2014, Trunkline LNG Export, LLC and Trunkline LNG Company, LLC changed their company names to Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC and Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, respectively. 2 15 U.S.C. §717b (2012). Docket No. CP14-119-000, et al. - 2 - 2. Also, on March 25, 2014, Lake Charles LNG filed an application in Docket No. CP14-122-000 [hereinafter Conversion Docket] to convert its existing section 7 certificated facilities at the terminal to section 3 jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • 158 Ferc ¶ 61109 United States Of
    158 FERC ¶ 61,109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Acting Chairman; Norman C. Bay, and Colette D. Honorable. Rover Pipeline LLC Docket Nos. CP15-93-000 CP15-93-001 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP CP15-94-000 Trunkline Gas Company, LLC CP15-96-000 ORDER ISSUING CERTIFICATES (Issued February 2, 2017) 1. On February 20, 2015, Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-93-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)1 and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations,2 for authorization to construct and operate approximately 510.7 miles of new interstate pipeline and related facilities extending from the Appalachian supply area to a proposed interconnection with Vector Pipeline, LP (Vector) in Livingston County, Michigan (Rover Pipeline Project). The proposed pipeline is designed to provide up to 3,250,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation service. Rover also requests a blanket certificate under Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission’s regulations to provide open-access transportation services, and a blanket certificate under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission’s regulations to perform certain routine construction activities and operations. 2. On May 19, 2016, Rover filed an amendment to its application in Docket No. CP15-93-001. The amendment updates Rover’s proposed cost-based recourse rates, pro 1 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012). 2 18 C.F.R. pt. 157 (2016). Docket No. CP15-93-000, et al. - 2 - forma tariff, and Exhibits K (Cost of Facilities), L (Financing), N (Revenues-Expenses- Income), O (Depreciation and Depletion), and P (Tariff) of its application.
    [Show full text]
  • XTO-047 AR PDF for Online Version.Indd
    XTO ENERGY 2 0 0 8 ANNUAL REPORT GROWING THE LEGACY XTO HEADQUARTERS FORT WORTH CONTINUING OUR PROVEN STRATEGY We have defined our success, going on 24 years, by staying true to a time-tested strategy: Acquire great properties and make them even better. Today the Company holds a vast hydrocarbon resource captured for shareholders. As always, our focused and prudent plan will convert this potential into value. At XTO Energy, our performance today establishes the routine of success for the future. It always has. 2 STOCK UP 3868% SINCE 1993 COMPOUNDED ANNUAL GROWTH OF 29% AND 24% IN RESERVES AND PRODUCTION XTO ENERGY GROWING THE LEGACY AT A GLANCE A legacy investment is inspired by design, built with discipline and confidently guided to perform. It endures the challenges and excels through the cycles. BLOCKBUSTER YEAR OF ACQUISITIONS Strong commodity prices brought unique opportunities to the market early in the year. We purchased $11 billion in properties with long-lived production, quality reserves and superb growth potential. By hedging the 2009 associated commodity prices at $117 oil and $8.79 natural gas, the Company secured healthy economic returns on the acquisitions. RECORD INVENTORY FOR BUILDING THE FUTURE As a top domestic producer, XTO has now established dominant positions in the most prolific hydrocarbon basins across the nation. From conventional to unconventional reservoirs, we own over 14 Tcfe of upside potential to provide years of predictable, visible growth. EXPANDING SUCCESS IN OUR EASTERN REGION Our decade-long drilling program on the tight sands and carbonate formations of East Texas has established a ‘giant field’ discovery of over 10 Tcfe in the Freestone Trend.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Energy Regulation, Development & Finance
    U.S. Energy Regulation, Development & Finance SECOND EDITION ROBERT A. JAMES, EDITOR Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Results depend on a number of factors unique to each matter. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 1540 Broadway | New York, NY 10036 | 877.323.4171 www.pillsburylaw.com © 2013 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. All rights reserved. Preprinted by permission of Law Business Research from the following publications: Electricty Regulation 2011, Gas Regulation 2012, Oil Regulation 2012, and Project Finance 2013. The U.S. energy and infrastructure sectors have undergone dramatic change since 2006, the year of Pillsbury’s first contribution to the Getting the Deal Through publications. Natural gas production and reserves have increased largely from shale and other unconventional sources, which have reinvigorated the petrochemical sector, challenged the prospects of power generation from coal, nuclear and renewable sources, and turned talk of LNG imports into talk of potential exports and gas as a more widespread transportation fuel. Oil production has increased in the Midwest, which faces obstacles for new and increased means of transportation, and the federal agencies regulating offshore oil leases and safety have been completely transformed after the Macondo accident. Power generators must, as ever, monitor the changing political drivers of policymakers and agencies, with higher renewable procurement standards being more concentrated in the Northeast and the West Coast and new generation projects often needing to coordinate with plans for greater local and regional transmission. A common thread is the greater need for investments in infrastructure of all types, including private finance and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to cope with the constraints on public funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Management's Discussion and Analysis
    ENBRIDGE INC. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS December 31, 2014 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS This Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) dated February 19, 2015 should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge or the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2014, prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). All financial measures presented in this MD&A are expressed in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise indicated. Additional information related to the Company, including its Annual Information Form, is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. OVERVIEW Enbridge, a Canadian Company, is a North American leader in delivering energy. As a transporter of energy, Enbridge operates, in Canada and the United States, the world's longest crude oil and liquids transportation system. The Company also has significant and growing involvement in natural gas gathering, transmission and midstream businesses and an increasing involvement in power transmission. As a distributor of energy, Enbridge owns and operates Canada's largest natural gas distribution company and provides distribution services in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and New York State. As a generator of energy, Enbridge has interests in more than 2,200 megawatts (MW) (1,600 MW net) of renewable and alternative energy generating capacity and is expanding its interests in wind, solar and geothermal facilities. Enbridge employs more than 11,000 people, primarily in Canada and the United States. The Company’s activities are carried out through five business segments: Liquids Pipelines; Gas Distribution; Gas Pipelines, Processing and Energy Services; Sponsored Investments; and Corporate, as discussed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Assurance Daily
    ENERGY ASSURANCE DAILY Tuesday Evening, October 09, 2012 Major Developments Update: California Wholesale Gasoline Prices Sink after Governor Orders Regulators to Allow Winter Blend for Sale California wholesale gasoline prices fell up to 12 percent Monday after Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday ordered the California Air Resources Board to immediately allow winter-blend gasoline to be sold in California, before its previously scheduled November 1 sales date, in an effort to increase gasoline supplies amid refinery outages that reduced supply and drove wholesale prices up more than $1 per gallon last week. California wholesale gasoline prices on Monday were $3.35 a gallon in Los Angeles, down 12 percent from last Friday’s $3.805 and down 18 percent from the peak of $4.095 last Thursday. Although gasoline inventories in California are at their lowest point in more than 10 years, the supply situation was expected to improve after ExxonMobil on Friday resumed operations at its 149,500 b/d Torrance, California refinery following a recovery from a plant-wide power outage last Monday. Tesoro’s 96,860 b/d Wilmington, California refinery was also expected to resume production this week, following a maintenance shutdown. Valero Energy Corp. on Monday said it was reviewing how the switch to winter blend would impact its decision last week to withdraw from the California wholesale spot market. Reuters, 15:00 October 5, 2012 Reuters, 03:01 October 9, 2012 http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-governor-brown-orders-winterblend-gas-to-reverse-price-hikes- 20121007,0,7721176.story http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=37412 Electricity NRC Warns of Flood Risk at Duke Energy’s Oconee Nuclear Power Plant in South Carolina Due to Upstream Jocassee Dam Duke Energy’s Oconee nuclear plant in South Carolina faces more flood risk from an upstream dam than earlier estimated, according to a 2011 report from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • MD&A and Financial Statements
    ENBRIDGE INC. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS December 31, 2013 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS This Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) dated February 14, 2014 should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge or the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2013, prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). All financial measures presented in this MD&A are expressed in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise indicated. Additional information related to the Company, including its Annual Information Form, is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. In connection with the preparation of the Company’s first quarter consolidated financial statements, an error was identified in the manner in which the Company historically recorded deferred regulatory assets associated with the difference between depreciation expense calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP and negotiated depreciation rates recovered in transportation tolls for certain of its regulated operations. The error was not material to any of the Company’s previously issued consolidated financial statements; however, as discussed in Note 4, Revision of Prior Period Financial Statements, to the consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2013, prior year comparative financial statements have been revised to correct the effect of this error. This non-cash revision did not impact cash flows for any prior period. The discussion and analysis included herein is based on revised financial results for the year ended December 31, 2013 or other comparative periods as indicated. OVERVIEW Enbridge, a Canadian Company, is a North American leader in delivering energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge 2015 Csr & Sustainability Report
    ENBRIDGE 2015 CSR & SUSTAINABILITY REPORT March 31, 2016, with revisions from July 7, 2017 Enbridge | 2015 CSR & SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION .....................................................................................................3 II. CSR & SUSTAINABILITY AT ENBRIDGE Message from Al Monaco, President & Chief Executive Officer ...................................................5 Message from Linda Coady, Chief Sustainability Officer ..............................................................7 CSR & Sustainability at Enbridge: An Overview ...........................................................................8 III. ABOUT ENBRIDGE Our Company ...............................................................................................................................14 Strategy & Priorities .....................................................................................................................22 Risk Management .........................................................................................................................26 Significant Sustainability Challenges & How We Are Responding ................................................28 Government Relations & Lobbying ..............................................................................................34 IV. OUR 2015 PERFORMANCE Maintaining the Fitness of our Systems and Leak Detection ........................................................36 Energy & Climate Change ............................................................................................................66
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN N. HUGHES Attorney at Law Professional Service Corporation 124 West Todd Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
    JOHN N. HUGHES Attorney at Law Professional Service Corporation 124 West Todd Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Telephone: (502) 227-7270 Email: [email protected] November 13, 2020 Kent Chandler Acting Executive Director Kentucky Public Service Commission 211 Sower Boulevard Frankfort, KY 40602-0615 RE: Atmos Energy: Case 2020-00289 Dear Mr. Chandler: Atmos Energy Corporation submits its responses to the Commission’s First Request for Information in the above captioned proceeding. If there are any questions about this matter, please contact me. I certify that the electronic filing is a complete and accurate copy of the original documents to be filed in this matter, which will be filed within the time designated by the Commission’s COVID-19 orders and that there are currently no parties in this proceeding that the Commission has excused from participation by electronic means. Sincerely, John N. Hughes Attorney for Atmos Energy Corporation COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ELECTRONIC REQEUST OF ATMOS ENERGY ) CORPORATION FOR MODIFICATION AND ) EXTENSION OF ITS GAS COST ADJUSTMENT ) CASE NO. PERFORMANCE BASED RATEMAKING ) 2020-00289 MECHANISM ) AFFIDAVIT The Affiant, Brannon C. Taylor, being duly sworn, deposes and states that the attached responses to Commission Staffs first request for information are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. STATE OF r~ ~Sv-c..­ COUNTY OF \j\J \ ~ ~~ 0\AM~ ------------~-- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by Bram1on C. Taylor on this the __th day of November, 2020. My Commission Expires: ~ \'tJ \~ V Case No. 2020-00289 Atmos Energy Corporation, Kentucky Division Staff DR Set No.
    [Show full text]
  • Bureau of Competition
    Bureau of Competition American Bar Assoeiatioa Aatitrust Section Spring MeeBiag 2804 Molly S. Boast Robert Pitofsky Acting Director Chainnan Bureau of Competition Federal Trade Coininission ABA ANTITRUST SECTION SPRING MEETING Summary of Bureau of Competition Activity Fiscal Year 1997 Through March 15,2001' I. Mergers A. Consent Orders 1. * ABB (Final Order April 14, 1999): ABB divested the Analytical Division of Elsag Bailey Process Automation N V. to Siemens Corporation settling antitrust concerns that the acquisition of Elsag would substantially reduce competition in the market for process gas chromatographs and process mass spectrometers, analytical instruments used to measure the chemical composition of a gas or liquid used in petrochemical refiniog, pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing, and pulp and paper processing. 2. * Agrium, Znc. (Final Order November 13,2000): A consent order requires Agrium to divest a deepwater terminal near Portland, Oregon, an up water terminal in central Washington and other assets settling charges concerning its proposed acquisition of the nitrogen fertilizer business of Union Oil Company ojCalifonia. Agrium and Unocal are the leading producers in the Northwest of nitrogen fertilizer - anhydrous ammonia, urea and UAN 32% solution - ingredients used for plant growth. 3. * Albertson 's, Znc. (Final Order December 8, 1998): A consent order requires Albertson's to divest eight supermarkets in Montana and seven in Wyoming to Supexvalu Holdings, Inc. in an effort to maintain competitive pricing in the areas. According to the complaint, Albertson's acquisition of Buftrey Food and Drug Store Company would result in higher prices and reduced quality in 11 * Denotes new cases during this period -- the fust public notice of an enforcement action by the Commission 1 communities 4.
    [Show full text]