Other Material Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Other Material Contingencies

Note H — Other Material Contingencies

Manhattan Steam Main Rupture

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. Approximately 93 suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover most of the company's costs, which the company is unable to estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident.

Investigations of Vendor Payments

In January 2009, CECONY commenced an internal investigation relating to the arrests of certain employees and retired employees (all of whom have since been convicted) for accepting kickbacks from contractors that performed construction work for the company. The company has retained a law firm, which has retained an accounting firm, to assist in the company's investigation. The company has provided information to governmental authorities, which consider the company to be a victim of unlawful conduct, in connection with their investigation of the arrested employees and contractors. The company has terminated its employment of the arrested employees and its contracts with the contractors. In February 2009, the NYSPSC commenced a proceeding that, among other things, will examine the prudence of certain of the company's expenditures relating to the arrests and consider whether additional expenditures should also be examined (see "Other Regulatory Matters" in Note B).

CECONY is also investigating the September 2010 arrest of a retired employee (who has since been convicted of participating in a bribery scheme in which the employee received payments from two companies that supplied materials to the company) and the January 2011 arrest of an employee (for accepting kickbacks from an engineering firm that performed work for the company). CECONY has provided information to governmental authorities in connection with their ongoing investigations of these matters.

The company, based upon its evaluation of its internal controls for 2011 and previous years, believes that the controls were effective to provide reasonable assurance that its financial statements have been fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Because the company's investigations are ongoing, the company is unable to predict the impact of any of the employees' unlawful conduct on the company's internal controls, business, results of operations or financial position.

Lease In/Lease Out Transactions

In each of 1997 and 1999, Con Edison Development entered into a transaction in which it leased property and then immediately subleased it back to the lessor (termed "Lease In/Lease Out," or LILO transactions). The transactions respectively involve electric generating and gas distribution facilities in the Netherlands, with a total investment of $259 million. The transactions were financed with $93 million of equity and $166 million of non-recourse, long-term debt secured by the underlying assets. In accordance with the accounting rules for leases, Con Edison is accounting for the two LILO transactions as leveraged leases. Accordingly, the company's investment in these leases, net of non-recourse debt, is carried as a single amount in Con Edison's consolidated balance sheet and income is recognized pursuant to a method that incorporates a level rate of return for those years when net investment in the lease is positive, based upon the after-tax cash flows projected at the inception of the leveraged leases. The company's investment in these leveraged leases was $(65) million at March 31, 2012 and $(55) million at December 31, 2011 and is comprised of a $228 million gross investment less $293 million of deferred tax liabilities at March 31, 2012 and $234 million gross investment less $289 million of deferred tax liabilities at December 31, 2011.

On audit of Con Edison's tax return for 1997, the IRS disallowed the tax losses in connection with the 1997 LILO transaction. In December 2005, Con Edison paid a $0.3 million income tax deficiency asserted by the IRS for the tax year 1997 with respect to the 1997 LILO transaction. In April 2006, the company paid interest of $0.2 million associated with the deficiency and commenced an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, entitled Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. United States, to obtain a refund of this tax payment and interest. A trial was completed in November 2007. In October 2009, the court issued a decision in favor of the company concluding that the 1997 LILO transaction was, in substance, a true lease that possessed economic substance, the loans relating to the lease constituted bona fide indebtedness, and the deductions for the 1997 LILO transactions claimed by the company in its 1997 federal income tax return are allowable. The IRS appealed the decision in December 2011.

In connection with its audit of Con Edison's federal income tax returns for 1998 through 2007, the IRS disallowed $416 million of net tax deductions taken with respect to both of the LILO transactions for the tax years. Con Edison is pursuing administrative appeals of these audit level disallowances. In connection with its audit of Con Edison's federal income tax returns for 2010, 2009 and 2008, the IRS has disallowed $40 million, $41 million and $42 million, respectively, of net tax deductions taken with respect to both of the LILO transactions. When these audit level disallowances become appealable, Con Edison intends to file an appeal of the disallowances.

Con Edison believes that its LILO transactions have been correctly reported, and has not recorded any reserve with respect to the disallowance of tax losses, or related interest, in connection with its LILO transactions. Con Edison's estimated tax savings, reflected in its financial statements, from the two LILO transactions through March 31, 2012, in the aggregate, was $240 million. If Con Edison were required to repay all or a portion of these amounts, it would also be required to pay interest of up to $114 million net of tax at March 31, 2012.

Pursuant to the accounting rules for leveraged lease transactions, the expected timing of income tax cash flows generated by Con Edison's LILO transactions are required to be reviewed at least annually. If the expected timing of the cash flows is revised, the rate of return and the allocation of income would be recalculated from the inception of the LILO transactions, and the company would be required to recalculate the accounting effect of the LILO transactions, which would result in a charge to earnings that could have a material adverse effect on the company's results of operations.

Guarantees

Con Edison and its subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance primarily to third parties on behalf of their subsidiaries. Maximum amounts guaranteed by Con Edison totaled $760 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

A summary, by type and term, of Con Edison's total guarantees at March 31, 2012 is as follows:

Guarantee Type	0 – 3 years		4 – 10 years		> 10 years		Total
	(Millions of Dollars)
Energy transactions	$	637	$	4	$	66	$	707
Intra-company guarantees		15		—		1		16
Other guarantees		33		4		—		37
TOTAL	$	685	$	8	$	67	$	760

Energy Transactions — Con Edison guarantees payments on behalf of its competitive energy businesses in order to facilitate physical and financial transactions in gas, pipeline capacity, transportation, oil, electricity and energy services. To the extent that liabilities exist under the contracts subject to these guarantees, such liabilities are included in Con Edison's consolidated balance sheet.

Intra-company Guarantees — Con Edison guarantees electricity sales made by Con Edison Energy and Con Edison Solutions to O&R and CECONY.

Other Guarantees — Con Edison and Con Edison Development also guarantee the following:

• $7 million relates to guarantees issued by Con Edison to CECONY covering a former Con Edison subsidiary's lease payment to use CECONY's conduit system in accordance with a tariff approved by the NYSPSC and a guarantee issued by Con Edison to a landlord to guarantee the former subsidiary's obligations under a building lease. The former subsidiary is obligated to reimburse Con Edison for any payments made under these guarantees. This obligation is fully secured by letters of credit;

• $25 million for guarantees provided by Con Edison to Travelers Insurance Company for indemnity agreements for surety bonds in connection with energy service projects performed by Con Edison Solutions;

• $5 million for guarantees provided by Con Edison Development to Travelers Insurance Company for indemnity agreements for surety bonds in connection with the construction and operation of solar facilities performed by its subsidiaries; and

• Con Edison, on behalf of Con Edison Solutions, as a retail electric provider, issued a guarantee to the Public Utility Commission of Texas with no specified limitation on the amount guaranteed, covering the payment of all obligations of a retail electric provider. Con Edison's estimate of the maximum potential obligation is $5 million as of March 31, 2012.

CECONY [Member]

Other Material Contingencies

Note H — Other Material Contingencies

Manhattan Steam Main Rupture

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. Approximately 93 suits are pending against the company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover most of the company's costs, which the company is unable to estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident.

Investigations of Vendor Payments

In January 2009, CECONY commenced an internal investigation relating to the arrests of certain employees and retired employees (all of whom have since been convicted) for accepting kickbacks from contractors that performed construction work for the company. The company has retained a law firm, which has retained an accounting firm, to assist in the company's investigation. The company has provided information to governmental authorities, which consider the company to be a victim of unlawful conduct, in connection with their investigation of the arrested employees and contractors. The company has terminated its employment of the arrested employees and its contracts with the contractors. In February 2009, the NYSPSC commenced a proceeding that, among other things, will examine the prudence of certain of the company's expenditures relating to the arrests and consider whether additional expenditures should also be examined (see "Other Regulatory Matters" in Note B).

CECONY is also investigating the September 2010 arrest of a retired employee (who has since been convicted of participating in a bribery scheme in which the employee received payments from two companies that supplied materials to the company) and the January 2011 arrest of an employee (for accepting kickbacks from an engineering firm that performed work for the company). CECONY has provided information to governmental authorities in connection with their ongoing investigations of these matters.

The company, based upon its evaluation of its internal controls for 2011 and previous years, believes that the controls were effective to provide reasonable assurance that its financial statements have been fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Because the company's investigations are ongoing, the company is unable to predict the impact of any of the employees' unlawful conduct on the company's internal controls, business, results of operations or financial position.

Lease In/Lease Out Transactions

In each of 1997 and 1999, Con Edison Development entered into a transaction in which it leased property and then immediately subleased it back to the lessor (termed "Lease In/Lease Out," or LILO transactions). The transactions respectively involve electric generating and gas distribution facilities in the Netherlands, with a total investment of $259 million. The transactions were financed with $93 million of equity and $166 million of non-recourse, long-term debt secured by the underlying assets. In accordance with the accounting rules for leases, Con Edison is accounting for the two LILO transactions as leveraged leases. Accordingly, the company's investment in these leases, net of non-recourse debt, is carried as a single amount in Con Edison's consolidated balance sheet and income is recognized pursuant to a method that incorporates a level rate of return for those years when net investment in the lease is positive, based upon the after-tax cash flows projected at the inception of the leveraged leases. The company's investment in these leveraged leases was $(65) million at March 31, 2012 and $(55) million at December 31, 2011 and is comprised of a $228 million gross investment less $293 million of deferred tax liabilities at March 31, 2012 and $234 million gross investment less $289 million of deferred tax liabilities at December 31, 2011.

On audit of Con Edison's tax return for 1997, the IRS disallowed the tax losses in connection with the 1997 LILO transaction. In December 2005, Con Edison paid a $0.3 million income tax deficiency asserted by the IRS for the tax year 1997 with respect to the 1997 LILO transaction. In April 2006, the company paid interest of $0.2 million associated with the deficiency and commenced an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, entitled Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. United States, to obtain a refund of this tax payment and interest. A trial was completed in November 2007. In October 2009, the court issued a decision in favor of the company concluding that the 1997 LILO transaction was, in substance, a true lease that possessed economic substance, the loans relating to the lease constituted bona fide indebtedness, and the deductions for the 1997 LILO transactions claimed by the company in its 1997 federal income tax return are allowable. The IRS appealed the decision in December 2011.

In connection with its audit of Con Edison's federal income tax returns for 1998 through 2007, the IRS disallowed $416 million of net tax deductions taken with respect to both of the LILO transactions for the tax years. Con Edison is pursuing administrative appeals of these audit level disallowances. In connection with its audit of Con Edison's federal income tax returns for 2010, 2009 and 2008, the IRS has disallowed $40 million, $41 million and $42 million, respectively, of net tax deductions taken with respect to both of the LILO transactions. When these audit level disallowances become appealable, Con Edison intends to file an appeal of the disallowances.

Con Edison believes that its LILO transactions have been correctly reported, and has not recorded any reserve with respect to the disallowance of tax losses, or related interest, in connection with its LILO transactions. Con Edison's estimated tax savings, reflected in its financial statements, from the two LILO transactions through March 31, 2012, in the aggregate, was $240 million. If Con Edison were required to repay all or a portion of these amounts, it would also be required to pay interest of up to $114 million net of tax at March 31, 2012.

Pursuant to the accounting rules for leveraged lease transactions, the expected timing of income tax cash flows generated by Con Edison's LILO transactions are required to be reviewed at least annually. If the expected timing of the cash flows is revised, the rate of return and the allocation of income would be recalculated from the inception of the LILO transactions, and the company would be required to recalculate the accounting effect of the LILO transactions, which would result in a charge to earnings that could have a material adverse effect on the company's results of operations.

Guarantees

Con Edison and its subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance primarily to third parties on behalf of their subsidiaries. Maximum amounts guaranteed by Con Edison totaled $760 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

A summary, by type and term, of Con Edison's total guarantees at March 31, 2012 is as follows:

Guarantee Type	0 – 3 years		4 – 10 years		> 10 years		Total
	(Millions of Dollars)
Energy transactions	$	637	$	4	$	66	$	707
Intra-company guarantees		15		—		1		16
Other guarantees		33		4		—		37
TOTAL	$	685	$	8	$	67	$	760

Energy Transactions — Con Edison guarantees payments on behalf of its competitive energy businesses in order to facilitate physical and financial transactions in gas, pipeline capacity, transportation, oil, electricity and energy services. To the extent that liabilities exist under the contracts subject to these guarantees, such liabilities are included in Con Edison's consolidated balance sheet.

Intra-company Guarantees — Con Edison guarantees electricity sales made by Con Edison Energy and Con Edison Solutions to O&R and CECONY.

Other Guarantees — Con Edison and Con Edison Development also guarantee the following:

• $7 million relates to guarantees issued by Con Edison to CECONY covering a former Con Edison subsidiary's lease payment to use CECONY's conduit system in accordance with a tariff approved by the NYSPSC and a guarantee issued by Con Edison to a landlord to guarantee the former subsidiary's obligations under a building lease. The former subsidiary is obligated to reimburse Con Edison for any payments made under these guarantees. This obligation is fully secured by letters of credit;

• $25 million for guarantees provided by Con Edison to Travelers Insurance Company for indemnity agreements for surety bonds in connection with energy service projects performed by Con Edison Solutions;

• $5 million for guarantees provided by Con Edison Development to Travelers Insurance Company for indemnity agreements for surety bonds in connection with the construction and operation of solar facilities performed by its subsidiaries; and

• Con Edison, on behalf of Con Edison Solutions, as a retail electric provider, issued a guarantee to the Public Utility Commission of Texas with no specified limitation on the amount guaranteed, covering the payment of all obligations of a retail electric provider. Con Edison's estimate of the maximum potential obligation is $5 million as of March 31, 2012.