XML 50 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.6.0.2
Financing Receivables
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Financing Receivable, Recorded Investment [Line Items]  
Financing Receivables
Financing Receivables
PSE&G
PSE&G sponsors a solar loan program designed to help finance the installation of solar power systems throughout its electric service area. The loans are generally paid back with solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs) generated from the installed solar electric system. The following table reflects the outstanding loans, including the noncurrent portion reported in Note 7. Long-Term Investments, by class of customer, none of which would be considered “non-performing.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Outstanding Loans by Class of Customer
 
 
 
 
As of December 31,
 
 
Consumer Loans
 
2016
 
2015
 
 
 
 
Millions
 
 
Commercial/Industrial
 
$
164

 
$
177

 
 
Residential
 
11

 
12

 
 
Total
 
$
175

 
$
189

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Energy Holdings
Energy Holdings had a net investment in domestic energy and real estate assets subject to leveraged lease accounting of $(25) million as of December 31, 2016 and $60 million as of December 31, 2015 (See Note 7. Long-Term Investments).
The corresponding receivables associated with the lease portfolio are reflected as follows, net of non-recourse debt. The ratings in the table represent the ratings of the entities providing payment assurance to Energy Holdings.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Lease Receivables, Net of
Non-Recourse Debt
 
 
Counterparties’ Credit Rating Standard & Poor’s (S&P) as of December 31, 2016
 
As of December 31, 2016
 
 
 
 
Millions
 
 
AA
 
$
16

 
 
BBB+ — BBB-
 
316

 
 
BB-
 
133

 
 
CCC
 
164

 
 
Total
 
$
629

 
 
 
 
 
 

The “BB-” and the “CCC” ratings in the preceding table represent lease receivables related to coal and gas-fired assets in Illinois and Pennsylvania, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, the gross investment in the leases of such assets, net of non-recourse debt, was $426 million, ($(131) million, net of deferred taxes). A more detailed description of such assets under lease is presented in the following table.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Asset
 
Location
 
Gross
Investment
 
 %
Owned
 
Total MW
 
Fuel
Type
 
Counterparties’
S&P Credit
Ratings
 
Counterparty
 
 
 
 
 
 
Millions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Powerton Station Units 5 and 6
 
IL
 
$
134

 
64
%
 
1,538

 
Coal
 
BB-
 
NRG Energy, Inc.
 
 
Joliet Station Units 7 and 8
 
IL
 
$
83

 
64
%
 
1,036

 
Gas
 
BB-
 
NRG Energy, Inc.
 
 
Keystone Station Units 1 and 2
 
PA
 
$
55

 
17
%
 
1,711

 
Coal
 
CCC (A)
 
REMA
 
 
Conemaugh Station Units 1 and 2
 
PA
 
$
55

 
17
%
 
1,711

 
Coal
 
CCC (A)
 
REMA
 
 
Shawville Station Units 1, 2, 3 and 4
 
PA
 
$
99

 
100
%
 
596

 
Gas
 
CCC (A)
 
REMA
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(A)
REMA’s parent company, GenOn Energy Inc. (GenOn), reported in August 2016 that GenOn did not expect to have sufficient liquidity to repay its senior unsecured notes due in June 2017. In January 2017, S&P further lowered its corporate credit rating on GenOn and its affiliates (including REMA) to “CCC - “ from “CCC” reflecting the primary credit concern of the near-term maturity of GenOn’s senior unsecured notes in June 2017 and expressed a negative outlook reflecting the continuing pressure on financial measures. In October 2016, Moody’s downgraded the GenOn Corporate Family Rating to “Caa3” to reflect its high debt burden relative to cash flow.
The credit exposure for lessors is partially mitigated through various credit enhancement mechanisms within the lease structures. These credit enhancement features vary from lease to lease and may include letters of credit or affiliate guarantees. Upon the occurrence of certain defaults, indirect subsidiary companies of Energy Holdings would exercise their rights and seek recovery of their investment, potentially including stepping into the lease directly to protect their investments. While these actions could ultimately protect or mitigate the loss of value, they could require the use of significant capital and trigger certain material tax obligations which could wholly or partially be mitigated by tax indemnification claims against the counterparty. A bankruptcy of a lessee would likely delay and potentially limit any efforts on the part of the lessors to assert their rights upon default and could delay the monetization of claims. Failure to recover adequate value could ultimately lead to a foreclosure on the assets under lease by the lenders. Although all lease payments are current, PSEG cannot predict the outcome of GenOn’s efforts to restructure its portfolio and improve its liquidity and the possible related impact on REMA. PSEG continues to monitor any changes to REMA’s and GenOn’s status and potential impacts on Energy Holdings’ lease investments. If lease rejections or foreclosures were to occur, Energy Holdings could potentially record a pre-tax write-off up to its gross investment in these facilities and may also be required to pay significant cash tax liabilities to the Internal Revenue Service.
Additional factors that may impact future lease cash flows include, but are not limited to, new environmental legislation and regulation regarding air quality, water and other discharges in the process of generating electricity, market prices for fuel, electricity and capacity, overall financial condition of lease counterparties and their affiliates and the quality and condition of assets under lease.
PSE&G [Member]  
Financing Receivable, Recorded Investment [Line Items]  
Financing Receivables
Financing Receivables
PSE&G
PSE&G sponsors a solar loan program designed to help finance the installation of solar power systems throughout its electric service area. The loans are generally paid back with solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs) generated from the installed solar electric system. The following table reflects the outstanding loans, including the noncurrent portion reported in Note 7. Long-Term Investments, by class of customer, none of which would be considered “non-performing.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Outstanding Loans by Class of Customer
 
 
 
 
As of December 31,
 
 
Consumer Loans
 
2016
 
2015
 
 
 
 
Millions
 
 
Commercial/Industrial
 
$
164

 
$
177

 
 
Residential
 
11

 
12

 
 
Total
 
$
175

 
$
189

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Energy Holdings
Energy Holdings had a net investment in domestic energy and real estate assets subject to leveraged lease accounting of $(25) million as of December 31, 2016 and $60 million as of December 31, 2015 (See Note 7. Long-Term Investments).
The corresponding receivables associated with the lease portfolio are reflected as follows, net of non-recourse debt. The ratings in the table represent the ratings of the entities providing payment assurance to Energy Holdings.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Lease Receivables, Net of
Non-Recourse Debt
 
 
Counterparties’ Credit Rating Standard & Poor’s (S&P) as of December 31, 2016
 
As of December 31, 2016
 
 
 
 
Millions
 
 
AA
 
$
16

 
 
BBB+ — BBB-
 
316

 
 
BB-
 
133

 
 
CCC
 
164

 
 
Total
 
$
629

 
 
 
 
 
 

The “BB-” and the “CCC” ratings in the preceding table represent lease receivables related to coal and gas-fired assets in Illinois and Pennsylvania, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, the gross investment in the leases of such assets, net of non-recourse debt, was $426 million, ($(131) million, net of deferred taxes). A more detailed description of such assets under lease is presented in the following table.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Asset
 
Location
 
Gross
Investment
 
 %
Owned
 
Total MW
 
Fuel
Type
 
Counterparties’
S&P Credit
Ratings
 
Counterparty
 
 
 
 
 
 
Millions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Powerton Station Units 5 and 6
 
IL
 
$
134

 
64
%
 
1,538

 
Coal
 
BB-
 
NRG Energy, Inc.
 
 
Joliet Station Units 7 and 8
 
IL
 
$
83

 
64
%
 
1,036

 
Gas
 
BB-
 
NRG Energy, Inc.
 
 
Keystone Station Units 1 and 2
 
PA
 
$
55

 
17
%
 
1,711

 
Coal
 
CCC (A)
 
REMA
 
 
Conemaugh Station Units 1 and 2
 
PA
 
$
55

 
17
%
 
1,711

 
Coal
 
CCC (A)
 
REMA
 
 
Shawville Station Units 1, 2, 3 and 4
 
PA
 
$
99

 
100
%
 
596

 
Gas
 
CCC (A)
 
REMA
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(A)
REMA’s parent company, GenOn Energy Inc. (GenOn), reported in August 2016 that GenOn did not expect to have sufficient liquidity to repay its senior unsecured notes due in June 2017. In January 2017, S&P further lowered its corporate credit rating on GenOn and its affiliates (including REMA) to “CCC - “ from “CCC” reflecting the primary credit concern of the near-term maturity of GenOn’s senior unsecured notes in June 2017 and expressed a negative outlook reflecting the continuing pressure on financial measures. In October 2016, Moody’s downgraded the GenOn Corporate Family Rating to “Caa3” to reflect its high debt burden relative to cash flow.
The credit exposure for lessors is partially mitigated through various credit enhancement mechanisms within the lease structures. These credit enhancement features vary from lease to lease and may include letters of credit or affiliate guarantees. Upon the occurrence of certain defaults, indirect subsidiary companies of Energy Holdings would exercise their rights and seek recovery of their investment, potentially including stepping into the lease directly to protect their investments. While these actions could ultimately protect or mitigate the loss of value, they could require the use of significant capital and trigger certain material tax obligations which could wholly or partially be mitigated by tax indemnification claims against the counterparty. A bankruptcy of a lessee would likely delay and potentially limit any efforts on the part of the lessors to assert their rights upon default and could delay the monetization of claims. Failure to recover adequate value could ultimately lead to a foreclosure on the assets under lease by the lenders. Although all lease payments are current, PSEG cannot predict the outcome of GenOn’s efforts to restructure its portfolio and improve its liquidity and the possible related impact on REMA. PSEG continues to monitor any changes to REMA’s and GenOn’s status and potential impacts on Energy Holdings’ lease investments. If lease rejections or foreclosures were to occur, Energy Holdings could potentially record a pre-tax write-off up to its gross investment in these facilities and may also be required to pay significant cash tax liabilities to the Internal Revenue Service.
Additional factors that may impact future lease cash flows include, but are not limited to, new environmental legislation and regulation regarding air quality, water and other discharges in the process of generating electricity, market prices for fuel, electricity and capacity, overall financial condition of lease counterparties and their affiliates and the quality and condition of assets under lease.