XML 113 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

(13) DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES

Derivative Instruments

DPL uses derivative instruments in the form of swaps and over-the-counter options primarily to reduce natural gas commodity price volatility and to limit its customers’ exposure to increases in the market price of natural gas under a hedging program approved by the DPSC. DPL uses these derivatives to manage the commodity price risk associated with its physical natural gas purchase contracts. All premiums paid and other transaction costs incurred as part of DPL’s natural gas hedging activity, in addition to all gains and losses related to hedging activities, are deferred under FASB guidance on regulated operations (ASC 980) until recovered from its customers through a fuel adjustment clause approved by the DPSC. The natural gas purchase contracts qualify as normal purchases, which are not required to be recorded in the financial statements until settled.

ACE was ordered to enter into the SOCAs by the NJBPU, and under the SOCAs, ACE would have received payments from or made payments to electric generation facilities based on i) the difference between the fixed price in the SOCAs and the price for capacity that clears PJM and ii) ACE’s annual proportion of the total New Jersey load relative to the other EDCs in New Jersey. ACE began applying derivative accounting to two of its SOCAs as of June 30, 2012 because these generators cleared the 2015-2016 PJM capacity auction in May 2012. The fair value of the derivatives embedded in these SOCAs were deferred as regulatory assets or regulatory liabilities because the NJBPU allowed full recovery from ACE’s distribution customers for any payments made by ACE, and ACE’s distribution customers would be entitled to payments received by ACE. As further discussed in Note (7), “Regulatory Matters,” in light of a Federal district court order, which ruled that the SOCAs are void, invalid and unenforceable, and ACE’s subsequent termination of the SOCAs in the fourth quarter of 2013, ACE derecognized the derivative assets and derivative liabilities related to the SOCAs.

The tables below identify the balance sheet location and fair values of derivative instruments as of December 31, 2013 and 2012:

 

     As of December 31, 2013  

Balance Sheet Caption

   Derivatives
Designated
as Hedging
Instruments
     Other
Derivative
Instruments
     Gross
Derivative
Instruments
     Effects of
Cash
Collateral
and
Netting
    Net
Derivative
Instruments
 
     (millions of dollars)  

Derivative assets (current assets)

   $  —        $ 1      $ 1      $ (1 )   $  —    
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Derivative asset

   $  —        $ 1      $ 1      $ (1 )   $  —    
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

     As of December 31, 2012  

Balance Sheet Caption

   Derivatives
Designated
as Hedging
Instruments
     Other
Derivative
Instruments
    Gross
Derivative
Instruments
    Effects of
Cash
Collateral
and
Netting
     Net
Derivative
Instruments
 
     (millions of dollars)  

Derivative assets (non-current assets)

   $  —        $ 8     $ 8     $  —        $ 8  
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total Derivative assets

     —          8        8        —          8   
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Derivative liabilities (current liabilities)

     —          (4 )     (4 )     —          (4 )

Derivative liabilities (non-current liabilities)

     —           (11 )     (11 )     —           (11 )
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total Derivative liabilities

     —          (15 )     (15 )     —          (15 )
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net Derivative liability

   $  —        $ (7 )   $ (7 )   $  —        $ (7 )
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

All derivative assets and liabilities available to be offset under master netting arrangements were netted as of December 31, 2013 and 2012. The amount of cash collateral that was offset against these derivative positions is as follows:

 

    December 31,
2013
    December 31,
2012
 
    (millions of dollars)  

Cash collateral received from counterparties with the obligation to return

  $ (1   $ —    

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, all PHI cash collateral pledged related to derivative instruments accounted for at fair value was entitled to be offset under master netting agreements.

Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments

Cash Flow Hedges

Power Delivery

All premiums paid and other transaction costs incurred as part of DPL’s natural gas hedging activity, in addition to all of DPL’s gains and losses related to hedging activities, are deferred under FASB guidance on regulated operations until recovered from customers based on the fuel adjustment clause approved by the DPSC. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, DPL had no net unrealized derivative losses and zero, zero and $5 million, respectively, of net realized losses associated with cash flow hedges recognized in the consolidated statements of (loss) income (through Fuel and purchased energy expense) that were deferred as Regulatory assets.

Cash Flow Hedges Included in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

PHI also may use derivative instruments from time to time to mitigate the effects of fluctuating interest rates on debt issued in connection with the operation of its businesses. In June 2002, PHI entered into several treasury rate lock transactions in anticipation of the issuance of several series of fixed-rate debt commencing in August 2002. Upon issuance of the fixed-rate debt in August 2002, the treasury rate locks were terminated at a loss. The loss has been deferred in AOCL and is being recognized in interest expense over the life of the debt issued as interest payments are made.

The tables below provide details regarding terminated cash flow hedges included in PHI’s consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012. The data in the following tables indicate the cumulative net loss after-tax related to terminated cash flow hedges by contract type included in AOCL, the portion of AOCL expected to be reclassified to income during the next 12 months, and the maximum hedge or deferral term:

 

     As of December 31, 2013      Maximum
Term

Contracts

   Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive Loss
After-tax
     Portion Expected
to be Reclassified
to Income during
the Next 12 Months
    
     (millions of dollars)       

Interest rate

   $ 9      $ 1      224 months        
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

Total

   $ 9      $ 1     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    
     As of December 31, 2012      Maximum
Term

Contracts

   Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive Loss
After-tax
     Portion Expected
to be Reclassified
to Income during
the Next 12 Months
    
     (millions of dollars)       

Interest rate

   $ 10      $ 1      236 months
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

Total

   $ 10      $ 1     
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

Other Derivative Activity

DPL and ACE have certain derivatives that are not in hedge accounting relationships and are not designated as normal purchases or normal sales. These derivatives are recorded at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets with the gain or loss for changes in fair value recorded in income. In accordance with FASB guidance on regulated operations, offsetting regulatory liabilities or regulatory assets are recorded on the consolidated balance sheets and the recognition of the derivative gain or loss is deferred because of the DPSC-approved fuel adjustment clause for DPL’s derivatives and the NJBPU order (prior to the order in October 2013 of a Federal district court as described in Note (7), “Regulatory Matters” which caused ACE to derecognize the derivative assets and derivative liabilities related to the SOCAs in the fourth quarter of 2013) pertaining to the SOCAs within which ACE’s capacity derivatives are embedded. The following table indicates the net unrealized and net realized derivative gains and (losses) arising during the period associated with these derivatives that were recognized in the consolidated statements of (loss) income (through Fuel and purchased energy expense) and that were also deferred as Regulatory assets for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011:

 

     For the Year Ended
December 31,
 
     2013     2012     2011  
     (millions of dollars)  

Net unrealized gain (loss) arising during the period

   $ 4     $ (6 )   $ (13 )

Net realized loss recognized during the period

     (4 )     (16 )     (22 )

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the quantities and positions of DPL’s net outstanding natural gas commodity forward contracts and ACE’s capacity derivatives associated with the SOCAs that did not qualify for hedge accounting were:

 

     December 31, 2013      December 31, 2012  

Commodity

   Quantity      Net Position      Quantity      Net Position  

DPL—Natural gas (one Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu))

     3,977,500         Long         3,838,000         Long   

ACE—Capacity (MWs)

     —          —           180         Long  

Contingent Credit Risk Features

The primary contracts used by the Power Delivery segment for derivative transactions are entered into under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement (ISDA) or similar agreements that closely mirror the principal credit provisions of the ISDA. The ISDAs include a Credit Support Annex (CSA) that governs the mutual posting and administration of collateral security. The failure of a party to comply with an obligation under the CSA, including an obligation to transfer collateral security when due or the failure to maintain any required credit support, constitutes an event of default under the ISDA for which the other party may declare an early termination and liquidation of all transactions entered into under the ISDA, including foreclosure against any collateral security. In addition, some of the ISDAs have cross default provisions under which a default by a party under another commodity or derivative contract, or the breach by a party of another borrowing obligation in excess of a specified threshold, is a breach under the ISDA.

Under the ISDA or similar agreements, the parties establish a dollar threshold of unsecured credit for each party in excess of which the party would be required to post collateral to secure its obligations to the other party. The amount of the unsecured credit threshold varies according to the senior, unsecured debt rating of the respective parties or that of a guarantor of the party’s obligations. The fair values of all transactions between the parties are netted under the master netting provisions. Transactions may include derivatives accounted for on-balance sheet as well as those designated as normal purchases and normal sales that are accounted for off-balance sheet. If the aggregate fair value of the transactions in a net loss position exceeds the unsecured credit threshold, then collateral is required to be posted in an amount equal to the amount by which the unsecured credit threshold is exceeded. The obligations of DPL are stand-alone obligations without the guarantee of PHI. If DPL’s debt rating were to fall below “investment grade,” the unsecured credit threshold would typically be set at zero and collateral would be required for the entire net loss position. Exchange-traded contracts are required to be fully collateralized without regard to the credit rating of the holder.

The gross fair values of DPL’s derivative liabilities with credit risk-related contingent features as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, were zero and $4 million, respectively, before giving effect to offsetting transactions or collateral under master netting agreements. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, DPL had posted no cash collateral against its gross derivative liability. If DPL’s debt ratings had been downgraded below investment grade as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, DPL’s net settlement amounts, including both the fair value of its derivative liabilities and its normal purchase and normal sale contracts would have been approximately zero and $2 million, respectively, and DPL would have been required to post collateral with the counterparties of approximately zero and $2 million, respectively. The net settlement and additional collateral amounts reflect the effect of offsetting transactions under master netting agreements.

DPL’s primary source for posting cash collateral or letters of credit is PHI’s credit facility, under which DPL is a borrower. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the aggregate amount of cash plus borrowing capacity under the credit facility available to meet the future liquidity needs of PHI’s utility subsidiaries was $332 million and $477 million, respectively.

Delmarva Power & Light Co/De [Member]
 
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

(12) DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES

DPL uses derivative instruments in the form of swaps and over-the-counter options primarily to reduce natural gas commodity price volatility and limit its customers’ exposure to increases in the market price of natural gas under a hedging program approved by the DPSC. DPL uses these derivatives to manage the commodity price risk associated with its physical natural gas purchase contracts. The natural gas purchase contracts qualify as normal purchases, which are not required to be recorded in the financial statements until settled. All premiums paid and other transaction costs incurred as part of DPL’s natural gas hedging activity, in addition to all gains and losses related to hedging activities, are deferred under FASB guidance on regulated operations (ASC 980) until recovered from its customers through a fuel adjustment clause approved by the DPSC.

The tables below identify the balance sheet location and fair values of derivative instruments as of December 31, 2013 and 2012:

 

     As of December 31, 2013  

Balance Sheet Caption

   Derivatives
Designated
as Hedging
Instruments
     Other
Derivative
Instruments
     Gross
Derivative
Instruments
     Effects of
Cash
Collateral
and
Netting
    Net
Derivative
Instruments
 
     (millions of dollars)  

Derivative assets (current assets)

   $  —        $ 1      $ 1      $ (1 )   $  —    
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Derivative asset

   $ —        $  1      $  1       $ (1   $ —    
  

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

     As of December 31, 2012  

Balance Sheet Caption

   Derivatives
Designated
as Hedging
Instruments
     Other
Derivative
Instruments
    Gross
Derivative
Instruments
    Effects of
Cash
Collateral
and
Netting
     Net
Derivative
Instruments
 
     (millions of dollars)  

Derivative liabilities (current liabilities)

   $  —        $ (4 )   $ (4 )   $ —        $ (4 )
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total Derivative liability

   $  —        $ (4 )   $ (4 )   $ —        $ (4 )
  

 

 

    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

 

 

All derivative assets and liabilities available to be offset under master netting arrangements were netted as of December 31, 2013 and 2012. The amount of cash collateral that was offset against these derivative positions is as follows:

 

     December 31,
2013
    December 31,
2012
 
     (millions of dollars)  

Cash collateral received from counterparties with the obligation to return

   $ (1 )   $ —    

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, all DPL cash collateral pledged related to derivative instruments accounted for at fair value was entitled to be offset under master netting agreements.

Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments

Cash Flow Hedges

All premiums paid and other transaction costs incurred as part of DPL’s natural gas hedging activity, in addition to all of DPL’s gains and losses related to hedging activities, are deferred under FASB guidance on regulated operations until recovered from customers based on the fuel adjustment clause approved by the DPSC. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, DPL had no net unrealized derivative losses and zero, zero and $5 million, respectively, of net realized losses associated with cash flow hedges recognized in the statements of income (through Purchased energy or Gas purchased expense) that were deferred as Regulatory assets.

Other Derivative Activity

DPL holds certain derivatives that are not in hedge accounting relationships and are not designated as normal purchases or normal sales. These derivatives are recorded at fair value on the balance sheets with the gain or loss for changes in the fair value recorded in income. In accordance with FASB guidance on regulated operations, offsetting regulatory liabilities or regulatory assets are recorded on the balance sheets and the recognition of the derivative gain or loss is deferred because of the DPSC-approved fuel adjustment clause. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the net unrealized derivative losses arising during the period that were deferred as Regulatory assets and the net realized losses recognized in the statements of income (through Purchased energy and Gas purchased expense) that were also deferred as Regulatory assets are provided in the table below:

 

     For the Year Ended
December 31,
 
     2013     2012     2011  
     (millions of dollars)  

Net unrealized gain (loss) arising during the period

   $ 1     $ (3 )   $ (13 )

Net realized loss recognized during the period

     (4 )     (16 )     (22 )

 

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, DPL had the following net outstanding natural gas commodity forward contracts that did not qualify for hedge accounting:

 

     December 31, 2013      December 31, 2012  

Commodity

   Quantity      Net Position      Quantity      Net Position  

Natural Gas (One Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu))

     3,977,500        Long        3,838,000        Long  

Contingent Credit Risk Features

The primary contracts used by DPL for derivative transactions are entered into under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement (ISDA) or similar agreements that closely mirror the principal credit provisions of the ISDA. The ISDAs include a Credit Support Annex (CSA) that governs the mutual posting and administration of collateral security. The failure of a party to comply with an obligation under the CSA, including an obligation to transfer collateral security when due or the failure to maintain any required credit support, constitutes an event of default under the ISDA for which the other party may declare an early termination and liquidation of all transactions entered into under the ISDA, including foreclosure against any collateral security. In addition, some of the ISDAs have cross default provisions under which a default by a party under another commodity or derivative contract, or the breach by a party of another borrowing obligation in excess of a specified threshold, is a breach under the ISDA.

Under the ISDA or similar agreements, the parties establish a dollar threshold of unsecured credit for each party in excess of which the party would be required to post collateral to secure its obligations to the other party. The amount of the unsecured credit threshold varies according to the senior, unsecured debt rating of the respective parties or that of a guarantor of the party’s obligations. The fair values of all transactions between the parties are netted under the master netting provisions. Transactions may include derivatives accounted for on-balance sheet as well as normal purchases and normal sales that are accounted for off-balance sheet. If the aggregate fair value of the transactions in a net loss position exceeds the unsecured credit threshold, then collateral is required to be posted in an amount equal to the amount by which the unsecured credit threshold is exceeded. The obligations of DPL are stand-alone obligations without the guarantee of PHI. If DPL’s credit rating were to fall below investment grade,” the unsecured credit threshold would typically be set at zero and collateral would be required for the entire net loss position. Exchange-traded contracts are required to be fully collateralized without regard to the credit rating of the holder.

The gross fair value of DPL’s derivative liabilities with credit-risk-related contingent features on December 31, 2013 and 2012, was zero and $4 million, respectively. As of those dates, DPL had posted no cash collateral in the normal course of business against its gross derivative liabilities. If DPL’s debt ratings had been downgraded below investment grade as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, DPL’s net settlement amounts would have been approximately zero and $2 million, respectively, and DPL would have been required to post collateral with the counterparties of approximately zero and $2 million, respectively. The net settlement and additional collateral amounts reflect the effect of offsetting transactions under master netting agreements.

DPL’s primary sources for posting cash collateral or letters of credit are PHI’s credit facilities, under which DPL is a borrower. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the aggregate amount of cash plus borrowing capacity under the credit facilities available to meet the liquidity needs of PHI’s utility subsidiaries was $332 million and $477 million, respectively.

Atlantic City Electric Co [Member]
 
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

(11) DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES

ACE was ordered to enter into the SOCAs by the NJBPU, and under the SOCAs, ACE would have received payments from or made payments to electric generation facilities based on (i) the difference between the fixed price in the SOCAs and the price for capacity that clears PJM and (ii) ACE’s annual proportion of the total New Jersey load relative to the other EDCs in New Jersey. ACE began applying derivative accounting to two of its SOCAs as of June 30, 2012 because these generators cleared the 2015-2016 PJM capacity auction in May 2012. The fair value of the derivatives embedded in the SOCAs were deferred as Regulatory assets or Regulatory liabilities because the NJBPU allowed full recovery from ACE’s distribution customers for any payments made by ACE, and ACE’s distribution customers would be entitled to any payments received by ACE.

As further discussed in Note (6), “Regulatory Matters,” in light of a Federal district court order, which ruled that the SOCAs are void, invalid and unenforceable, and ACE’s subsequent termination of the SOCAs in the fourth quarter of 2013, ACE derecognized the derivative assets and derivative liabilities related to the SOCAs in the fourth quarter of 2013.

As of December 31, 2012, ACE had non-current Derivative assets of $8 million, and non-current Derivative liabilities of $11 million associated with the two SOCAs and offsetting Regulatory liability and Regulatory asset amounts, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, ACE had 180 megawatts (MWs) of capacity in a long position, with no collateral or netting applicable to the capacity. Unrealized gains and losses associated with these capacity derivatives, which netted to unrealized gains of $3 million and unrealized losses of $3 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, have been deferred as Regulatory liabilities and Regulatory assets.