UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 10-K

[X]     ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF


THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


/X/ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20032004
OR

OR

[  ]    

/ /TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


For the transition period from __________ to __________

 For the transition period from ___________ to ___________

Commission
File Number
Exact name of registrant as specified
I.R.S.
in its charter,
state of incorporation,
Employer
Commission
address of principal executive offices,
Identification
File Number
telephone number
Numbers
I.R.S.
Employer
Identification
Number


1-16305
PUGET ENERGY, INC.
A Washington Corporation
10885 NE 4th Street, Suite 1200
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5591
(425) 454-6363
91-1969407
A Washington Corporation.
10885 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 1200
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5591
(425) 454-6363


1-4393
PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.
A Washington Corporation
10885 NE 4th Street, Suite 1200
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5591
(425) 454-6363
91-0374630
A Washington Corporation.
10885 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 1200
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5591
(425) 454-6363




Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 TITLE OF EACH CLASS
Title Of Each Class
NAME OF EACH EXCHANGE
ON WHICH LISTED

Name Of Each Exchange
On Which Listed
Puget Energy, Inc.
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
N.Y.S.E.NYSE
Preferred Share Purchase RightsNYSE
   
     Preferred Share Purchase RightsN.Y.S.E.
Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
8.4% Capital Securities
N.Y.S.E.NYSE


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:


 TITLE OF EACH CLASS
Title Of Each Class
 
Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Preferred Stock (cumulative, $100 par value) 
 
8.231% Capital Securities 






Puget Sound Energy, Inc. meets the conditions set forth in General Instructions I(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and is therefore filing this Form 10-K with the reduced disclosure format.


Indicate by check mark whether the registrants: (1) have 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 (or for such shorter period that the registrants were required to file such reports), and (2) have been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes/X/No/ /

               Yes /X/ 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 Puget Energy, Inc.registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).
Puget Energy, Inc.Yes/X/No/ /Puget Sound Energy, Inc.Yes/ /No/X/

               Yes /X/ No / /
        Indicate by check mark whether Puget Sound Energy, Inc. is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).
               Yes / / No /X /
The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of Puget Energy, Inc. at June 30, 2003 (theas of the last business day of Puget Energy’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter)quarter was approximately $2,238,688,000.$2,127,279,000. The number of shares of Puget Energy, Inc.‘s’s common stock outstanding at February 27, 200423, 2005 was 99,246,49599,889,474 shares.


All of the outstanding shares of voting stock of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. are held by Puget Energy, Inc.


Documents Incorporated by Reference


Portions of the Puget Energy, Inc. proxy statement for its 20042005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after December 31, 20032004 are incorporated by reference in Part III hereof.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K is a combined report being filed separately by two different registrants: Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. makes no representation as to the information contained in this report relating to Puget Energy, Inc. and the subsidiaries of Puget Energy, Inc. other than Puget Sound Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries.





INDEX


Definitions
Forward-Looking Statements
Part I
 1.Business 
 
 
 Energy Conservation
2.Properties 
3.Legal Proceedings
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

Part II
 5.
Selected Financial Data
Management'sManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of
7a.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
9.
 9a.Controls and Procedures

Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrants
Executive Compensation
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
   and Related Stockholder Matters
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
Principal Accountant Fees and Services
15.Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K
 
  
  
Report of Independent Auditors - Puget Energy, Inc.
Report of Independent Auditors - Puget Sound Energy, Inc.




DEFINITIONS


AFUDCAllowance for Funds Used During Construction
BPABonneville Power Administration
CAISOCalifornia Independent System Operator
COEUnited States Army Corps of Engineers
     ChelanPublic Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington
DthDekatherm (one Dth is equal to one MMBtu)
EcologyWashington State Department of Ecology
FASBFinancial Accounting Standards Board
FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
FINFinancial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation
FPAFederal Power Act
HCPHabitat Conservation Plans
InfrastruXInfrastruX Group, Inc.
kWKilowatts (one kilowatt equals one thousand watts)
     KWKilowatts
kWhKilowatt Hours (one kWh equals one thousand watt hours)
LIBORLondon Interbank Offered Rate
LNGLiquefied Natural Gas
MMBtuOne Million British Thermal Units
MMSMinerals Management Service
MWMegawatts (one MW equals one thousand KW)kW)
MWhMegawatt Hours (one MWh equals one thousand kWh)
NOPRNotice of Proposed Rulemaking
NYSENew York Stock Exchange
     NWPWilliams Northwest Pipeline Corporation
PCAPower Cost Adjustment
PGAPurchased Gas Adjustment
PG&EPacific Gas & Electric Company
PSEPuget Sound Energy, Inc.
PUDsWashington Public Utility Districts
Puget EnergyPuget Energy, Inc.
PURPAPublic Utility Regulatory Policies Act
RFPRequest for Proposal
RTORegional Transmission Organization
SECUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission
SFASStatement of Financial Accounting Standards
SMDFERC Standard Market Design
Washington CommissionWashington Utilities and Transportation Commission
WECOWestern Energy Company




FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS


Puget Energy Inc. (Puget Energy) and Puget Sound Energy Inc. (PSE) are including the following cautionary statementstatements in this Form 10-K to make applicable and to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of Puget Energy or PSE. This report includes forward-looking statements, which are statements of expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions of future events or performance. Words or phrases such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “predicts,” “projects,” “will likely result,” “will continue” or similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties whichthat could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed. Puget Energy’s and PSE’s expectations, beliefs and projections are expressed in good faith and are believed by Puget Energy and PSE, as applicable, to have a reasonable basis, including without limitation management’s examination of historical operating trends, data contained in records and other data available from third parties; but there can be no assurance that Puget Energy’s and PSE’s expectations, beliefs or projections will be achieved or accomplished.
In addition to other factors and matters discussed elsewhere in this report, some important factors that could cause actual results or outcomes for Puget Energy and PSE to differ materially from those discussed in forward-looking statements include:


Risks relating to the regulated utility business (PSE)
·  Risks relatinggovernmental policies and regulatory actions, including those of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Washington Commission), with respect to allowed rates of return, financings, industry and rate structures, transmission and generation business structures within PSE, acquisition and disposal of assets and facilities, operation, maintenance and construction of electric generating facilities, operation of distribution and transmission facilities (gas and electric), licensing of hydroelectric operations and gas storage facilities, recovery of other capital investments, recovery of power and gas costs, recovery of regulatory assets, and present or prospective wholesale and retail competition;
·  financial difficulties of other energy companies and related events, which may affect the regulatory and legislative process in unpredictable ways and also adversely affect the availability of and access to capital and credit markets and/or impact delivery of energy to PSE from its suppliers;
·  wholesale market disruption, which may result in a deterioration of market liquidity, increase the risk of counterparty default, affect the regulatory and legislative process in unpredictable ways, affect wholesale energy prices and/or impede PSE’s ability to manage its energy portfolio risks;
·  the effect of wholesale market structures (including, but not limited to, new market design such as Grid West, a regional transmission organization, and Standard Market Design);
·  PSE electric or gas distribution system failure, which may impact PSE’s ability to adequately deliver gas supply to its customers;
·  weather, which can have a potentially serious impact on PSE’s revenues and its ability to procure adequate supplies of gas, fuel or purchased power to serve its customers and on the cost of procuring such supplies;
·  variable hydroelectric conditions, which can impact streamflow and PSE’s ability to generate electricity from hydroelectric facilities;
·  plant outages, which can have an adverse impact on PSE’s expenses as it procures adequate supplies to replace the lost energy or dispatches a more expensive resource;
·  the ability of gas or electric plant to operate as intended, which if not in proper operating condition or design could limit the capacity of the operating plant;
·  the ability to renew contracts for electric and gas supply and the price of renewal;
·  blackouts or large curtailments of transmission systems, whether PSE’s or others’, which can have an impact on PSE’s ability to deliver load to its customers;
·  the ability to restart generation following a regional transmission disruption;
·  failure of the interstate gas pipeline delivering to PSE’s system, which may impact PSE’s ability to adequately deliver gas supply to its customers;
·  the ability to relicense FERC hydroelectric projects at a cost-effective level;
·  the amount of collection, if any, of PSE’s receivables from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and other parties, and the amount of refunds found to be due from PSE to the regulated utilityCAISO or other parties;
·  industrial, commercial and residential growth and demographic patterns in the service territories of PSE;
·  general economic conditions in the Pacific Northwest, which might impact customer consumption or affect PSE’s accounts receivable; and
·  the loss of significant customers or changes in the business (PSE)of significant customers, which may result in changes in demand for PSE’s services.
governmental policies and regulatory actions, including those of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Washington Commission), with respect to allowed rates of return, financings, industry and rate structures, transmission and generation business structures within PSE, acquisition and disposal of assets and facilities, operation and construction of electric generating facilities, distribution and transmission facilities, licensing of hydro operations, recovery of other capital investments, recovery of power and gas costs, recovery of regulatory assets, and present or prospective wholesale and retail competition;
financial difficulties of other energy companies and related events, which may affect the regulatory and legislative process in unpredictable ways and also adversely affect the availability of and access to capital and credit markets;
wholesale market disruption, which may result in a deterioration in market liquidity, increase the risk of counterparty default, affect the regulatory and legislative process in unpredictable ways, limit the availability of and access to capital credit markets, affect wholesale energy prices and/or impede PSE’s ability to manage its energy portfolio risks;
the effect of wholesale market structures (including, but not limited to, new market design such as Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) West and Standard Market Design);
weather, which can have a potentially serious impact on PSE’s revenues and its ability to procure adequate supplies of gas, fuel or purchased power to serve its customers and on the cost of procuring such supplies;
hydroelectric conditions, which can have a potentially serious impact on electric capacity and PSE’s ability to generate electricity;
the amount of collection, if any, of PSE’s receivables from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the amount of refunds found to be due from PSERisks relating to the CAISO or others;non-regulated utility service business (InfrastruX Group, Inc.)
industrial, commercial and residential growth and demographic patterns in the service territories of PSE;
general economic conditions in the Pacific Northwest;
the loss of significant customers or changes in the business of significant customers, which may result in changes in demand for PSE's services;
plant outages, which can have an impact on PSE’s expenses and its ability to procure adequate supplies to replace the lost energy;
the ability to renew contracts for electric and gas supply and the price of renewal;
blackouts or large curtailments of transmission systems, whether PSE’s or others’, which can have an impact on PSE’s ability to deliver load to its customers; and
the ability to relicense FERC hydro projects at a cost-effective level.

·  Risks relatingthe ability of Puget Energy to the non-regulated utility service business (InfrastruX Group, Inc.)complete a sale of its interests in InfrastruX to a third party under reasonable terms;
the failure of InfrastruX to service its obligations under its credit agreement, in which case Puget Energy, as guarantor, may be required to satisfy these obligations, which could have a negative impact on Puget Energy’s liquidity and access to capital;
the inability to generate internal growth at InfrastruX, which could be affected by, among other factors, InfrastruX’s ability to expand the range of services offered to customers, attract new customers, increase the number of projects performed for existing customers, hire and retain employees and open additional facilities;
the ability of InfrastruX to integrate acquired companies within existing operations without substantial costs, delays or other operational or financial problems, which involves a number of special risks;
the effect of competition in the industry in which InfrastruX competes, including from competitors that may have greater resources than InfrastruX, which may enable them to develop expertise, experience and resources to provide services that are superior in both price and quality;
the extent to which existing electric power and gas companies or prospective customers will continue to outsource services in the future, which may be impacted by, among other things, regional and general economic conditions in the markets InfrastruX serves;
delinquencies associated with the financial conditions of InfrastruX's customers;

the impact of any goodwill impairments on the results of operations of InfrastruX arising from its acquisitions, which could have a negative effect on the results of operations of Puget Energy;
the impact of adverse weather conditions that negatively affect operating conditions and results; and
the ability to obtain adequate bonding coverage and the cost of such bonding.

·  Risks relatingthe failure of InfrastruX to both the regulatedservice its obligations under its credit agreement, in which case Puget Energy, as guarantor, may be required to satisfy these obligations, which could have a negative impact on Puget Energy’s liquidity and non-regulated businessesaccess to capital;
·  the inability to generate internal growth at InfrastruX, which could be affected by, among other factors, InfrastruX’s ability to expand the range of services offered to customers, attract new customers, increase the number of projects performed for existing customers, hire and retain employees and open additional facilities;
·  the effect of competition in the industry in which InfrastruX competes, including from competitors that may have greater resources than InfrastruX, which may enable them to develop expertise, experience and resources to provide services that are superior in quality or lower in price;
·  the extent to which existing electric power and gas companies or prospective customers will continue to outsource services in the future, which may be impacted by, among other things, regional and general economic conditions in the markets InfrastruX serves;
·  delinquencies, including those associated with the financial conditions of InfrastruX’s customers;
·  the impact of any goodwill impairments on the results of operations of InfrastruX arising from its acquisitions, which could have a negative effect on the results of operations of Puget Energy;
·  the impact of adverse weather conditions that negatively affect operating conditions and results;
·  the ability to obtain adequate bonding coverage and the cost of such bonding; and
·  the perception of risk associated with its business due to a challenging business environment.

Risks relating to both the impact of acts of terrorism or similar significant events, such as the attack on September 11, 2001;regulated and non-regulated businesses
the ability of Puget Energy, PSE and InfrastruX to access the capital markets to support requirements for working capital, construction costs and the repayment of maturing debt;
·  the impact of acts of terrorism or similar significant events;
capital market conditions, including changes in the availability of capital or interest rate fluctuations;
·  the ability of Puget Energy, PSE and InfrastruX to access the capital markets to support requirements for working capital, construction costs and the repayment of maturing debt;
changes in Puget Energy’s or PSE’s credit ratings, which may have an adverse impact on the availability and cost of for Puget Energy, PSE and InfrastruX;
·  capital market conditions, including changes in the availability of capital or interest rate fluctuations;
legal and regulatory proceedings;
·  changes in Puget Energy’s or PSE’s credit ratings, which may have an adverse impact on the availability and cost of capital for Puget Energy, PSE and InfrastruX;
changes in, and compliance with, environmental and endangered species laws, regulations, decisions and policies concerning the environment, natural resources, and fish and wildlife (including the Endangered Species Act);
·  legal and regulatory proceedings;
employee workforce factors, including strikes, work stoppages, availability of qualified employees or the loss of a key executive;
·  the ability to recover changes in enacted federal, state or local tax laws through revenue in a timely manner;
the ability to obtain and keep patent or other intellectual property rights to generate revenue;
·  changes in, adoption of and compliance with laws and regulations including environmental and endangered species laws, regulations, decisions and policies concerning the environment, natural resources, and fish and wildlife (including the Endangered Species Act);
the ability to obtain adequate insurance coverage and the cost of such insurance; and
·  employee workforce factors, including strikes, work stoppages, availability of qualified employees or the loss of a key executive;
the impacts of natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes or landslides.
·  the ability to obtain and keep patent or other intellectual property rights to generate revenue;
·  the ability to obtain adequate insurance coverage and the cost of such insurance;
·  the impacts of natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, fires or landslides;
·  the impact of adverse weather conditions that negatively affect operating conditions and results;
·  the ability to maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting; and
·  the ability to maintain customers and employees.

Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and, except as required by law, Puget Energy and PSE undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for management to predict all such factors, nor can it assess the impact of any such factor on the business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement.






PART I


ITEM 1. BUSINESS


GENERAL
Puget Energy, Inc. (Puget Energy) is an energy services holding company incorporated in the State of Washington in 1999. All of its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE), a utility company, and InfrastruX Group, Inc. (InfrastruX), a construction services company. Puget Energy has no significant assets other than the stock of its subsidiaries. Subject to limited exceptions, Puget Energy is exempt from regulation as a public utility holding company pursuant to Section 3(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Puget Energy and PSE are collectively referred to herein as “the Company.” The following table provides the percentages of Puget Energy’s consolidated operating revenues and net income generated and assets held by the reportable segments:

Segment
Percent of Revenue
 
Percent of Net Income
 
Percent of Assets
 
 
2004
2003
 
2002
 
2004
 
2003
 
2002
 
2004
 
2003
 
2002
 
Puget Sound Energy1
 85.3%85.4% 85.8% 224.2% 98.1% 87.4% 94.5% 92.7% 92.2%
InfrastruX 14.4%14.3% 13.8% (127.8)% 1.5% 8.6% 4.3% 6.0% 5.5%
Other subsidiaries 0.3%0.3% 0.4% 3.6% 0.4% 4.0% 1.2% 1.3% 2.3%
_______________________________

Segment      Percent of Revenue      Percent of Net Income      Percent of Assets
 200320022001200320022001200320022001
Puget Sound Energy 86.0%86.2%92.9%98.2%88.3%75.0%92.6%92.2%93.5%
InfrastruX 13.7%13.4%6.0%1.5%8.0%2.4%6.0%5.5%4.0%
Other subsidiaries 0.3%0.4%1.1%0.3%3.7%22.6%1.4%2.3%2.5%
1  
Net income for PSE is presented as net income for common stock due to $5.2 million and $7.8 million of preferred stock dividend being treated as an other deduction at Puget Energy in 2003 and 2002, respectively

Additional financial data regarding these segments are included in Note 1924, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included with this report.


PUGET ENERGY STRATEGY
Puget Energy Strategy
Puget Energy is the parent company of the largest electric and natural gas utility headquartered in the State of Washington, primarily engaged in the business of electric transmission, distribution and generation and natural gas transmission and distribution. Puget Energy’s business strategy is to generate stable earnings and cash flow by focusing primarily on the regulated utility business conducted through PSE. The key elements of this strategy include:

Focus on regulated utility business.

PSE intends to continue to focus on its core electric and natural gas transmission and distribution utility business, offering reliable electric and gas service at a fair value to PSE’s customers.

Add electric generation and delivery infrastructure to meet customer needs. Ensuring reliable, low-cost energy supply is one of PSE’s highest priorities. As regional demand for energy continues to grow, PSE’s committed power supply resources will not be adequate to meet anticipated demand, especially as existing long-term power purchase contracts begin to expire. Accordingly, PSE is continually seeking new electric power resource generation and long term purchase power agreements to meet load requirements and ensure stable cost-based energy supply within its service territory. During 2004, PSE made the following strides in this goal:

·  Focus on regulated utility business. PSE intends to continue to focus on its core electric and natural gas transmission and distribution utility business, offering reliable electric and gas service at a fair value to PSE’s customers.

Add electric generation and delivery infrastructure to meet customer needs. Ensuring stable, cost-based energy supply is one of PSE’s highest priorities. As regional demand for energy continues to grow, PSE’s committed power supply resources will not be adequate to meet anticipated demand, especially as existing long-term power purchase contracts begin to expire. The collapse of the merchant energy industry has resulted in the cancellation or delay of power plant construction projects that were expected to meet the region’s supply needs at competitive prices. Accordingly, PSE has begun the process of acquiring generation to meet load by purchasingPurchased a 49.85% interest in a 275 MW (250250 MW capacity with 25 MW planned capital improvements) gas-fired electric generatinggeneration facility located within PSE’sin western Washington, which went into service territory, which is anticipated to be completedin April 2004.
·  Signed a two-year purchase power agreement in the second quarter of 2004. Also, PSE has issued2004 with a requestutility for proposals (RFP) to acquire approximately 50 average85 MW of energy fromwith delivery beginning January 1, 2005.
·  Signed a non-binding letter of intent in September 2004 to purchase a wind power for its electric resource portfolio and issued an RFP in February 2004 for an additional 305generation facility with up to 230 MW of new electric-power resources. PSE will also continue its expenditures on conservation through utility programs and an RFP for another 30 averagegeneration to be developed in central Washington State.
·  Signed a non-binding letter of intent in October 2004 to purchase a wind generation facility with up to 150 MW of energy efficient projects. In additiongeneration to these strategies to increase capacity and energy, PSE will continue to focus on operational excellence and efficiencybe developed in the utility business through investment in, and development of, systems, technology and personnel.eastern Washington State.

Rebuild financial strength to fund energy infrastructure and manage energy portfolio. PSE intends to focus on the regulated business to provide credit quality, liquidity and predictable earnings to attract investors in Puget Energy. During 2003, Puget Energy was able to attract investors and sell additional common stock to those investors.
Rebuild financial strength to fund energy infrastructure and manage energy portfolio. PSE intends to focus on the regulated business to improve its credit quality and liquidity and to provide predictable earnings to attract investors in Puget Energy.


Provide return to Puget Energy shareholders through earnings growth and dividends. Generate return and attract equity capital through growth in PSE and InfrastruX earnings and dividends.
Provide return to Puget Energy shareholders through earnings growth and dividends. Generate return and attract equity capital through growth in PSE earnings and dividends.

Achieve PSE earnings growth. PSE earnings will grow through rebuilding common equity and increasing the ratebase by adding generating and delivery resources where needed with timely cost recovery. Puget Energy was able to invest additional capital in PSE through the sale of its common stock.
Achieve PSE earnings growth. PSE earnings will grow through rebuilding common equity and increasing ratebase by adding generating and delivery resources where needed with timely cost recovery. Puget Energy was able to invest additional capital in PSE through the sale of its common stock.

Focus on InfrastruX growth.Focus on internal earnings growth opportunities within the InfrastruX subsidiaries.
After completing a strategic review of InfrastruX, Puget Energy has decided to exit the construction services sector. Puget Energy’s Board of Directors approved the decision on February 8, 2005. The decision to exit the business is the result of the Company’s need to invest in the core utility business to acquire or construct energy generating resources and energy delivery infrastructure. During 2005, Puget Energy intends to monetize its interest in InfrastruX through sale or third party recapitalization and invest the proceeds in PSE.

PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.
PSE is a public utility incorporated in the State of Washington. PSE furnishes electric and gas service in a territory covering approximately 6,000 square miles, principally in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington.
At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE had approximately 977,7001,001,200 electric customers, consisting of 861,900884,500 residential, 109,700110,500 commercial, 4,0003,900 industrial and 2,1002,300 other customers; and approximately 644,600672,000 gas customers, consisting of 593,800619,000 residential, 48,00050,200 commercial, 2,700 industrial and 100 transportation customers. At December 31, 2003,2004, approximately 310,900324,200 customers purchased both forms of energyelectricity and gas from PSE. For the year 2003,2004, PSE added approximately 19,70023,500 electric customers and approximately 22,60027,400 gas customers, representing annualized customer growth rates of 2.1%2.4% and 3.6%4.2% respectively. During 2003,2004, PSE’s billed retail and transportation revenues from electric utility operations excluding conservation trust collections, were derived 48%47% from residential customers, 43%44% from commercial customers, 7% from industrial customers and 2% from transportation and other customers. PSE’s retail revenues from gas utility operations were derived 64%63% from residential customers, 29%30% from commercial customers, 5% from industrial customers and 2% from transportation customers. During this period the largest customer accounted for approximately 1% of PSE’s operating revenues.
PSE is affected by various seasonal weather patterns throughout the year and, therefore, utility revenues and associated expenses are not generated evenly during the year. Variations in energy usage by consumers occur from season to season and from month to month within a season, primarily as a result of weather conditions. PSE normally experiences its highest retail energy sales in the first and fourth quarters of the year. Sales of electricity to wholesale customers also vary by quarter and year depending principally upon economicfundamental market factors and weather conditions. PSE has a purchased gas adjustment (PGA) mechanism in retail gas rates to recover variations in gas supply and transportation costs. PSE also has a power cost adjustment (PCA) mechanism in electric rates to recover variations in electricity costs on a shared basis between customers and PSE.
In the five-year period ended December 31, 2003,2004, PSE’s gross electric utility plant additions were $941$786 million and retirements were $210$290 million. In the five-year period ended December 31, 2003,2004, PSE’s gross gas utility plant additions were $551$586 million and retirements were $76$74 million. In the same five-year period, PSE’s gross common utility plant additions were $211$128 million and retirements were $45$33 million. Gross electric utility plant at December 31, 20032004 was approximately $4.3$4.4 billion, which consisted of 59%60% distribution, 27%26% generation, 6% transmission and 8% general plant and other. Gross gas utility plant as of December 31, 20032004 was approximately $1.7$1.9 billion, which consisted of 86%85% distribution, 6%7% transmission and 8% general plant and other. Gross common utility general and intangible plant at December 31, 20032004 was approximately $391$410 million.


INFRASTRUX GROUP, INC.
InfrastruX was incorporated in the State of Washington in 2000 to pursue the non-regulated construction services business. InfrastruX is a national leader in providingprovides infrastructure construction services to the electric and gas utility industries. InfrastruX has acquired 12 companies, primarily in the south/Midwest, Texas, the north-centralsouth-central and eastern United States, that are engaged in some or all of the following services and activities in their respective regions or nationally:


·  
Electric: Overhead and underground power line and cable construction, installation and maintenance, including high-voltage transmission and distribution lines, copper and fiberoptic cables; duct installation; revitalization and damage prevention for underground power lines and cables using the patented Cablecure® treatment; substation construction; and other specialty services for new and existing infrastructures.


·  
Gas: Large-diameter pipeline installation and maintenance; service lines and meters; conventional river crossings and bridge maintenance; cathodic protection; power station fabrication and installation; vacuum excavation; hydrostatic testing; internal pipeline inspection; product pipelines; and other specialty services for distribution and transmission pipeline services including small, mid-size and large-bore directional drilling for virtually all pipeline diameters and soil conditions.

Following a strategic review of InfrastruX conducted by Puget Energy management, on February 8, 2005, Puget Energy’s Board of Directors decided to exit the utility construction services sector. During 2005, Puget Energy intends to monetize its interest in InfrastruX through a sale or third party recapitalization and to invest the proceeds in PSE. The costs associated with exiting the InfrastruX business cannot be quantified at this time. However, Puget Energy believes that such costs will not be material given the effects of the impairment charge recorded in the fourth quarter 2004.
InfrastruX is affected by seasonal weather conditions and, therefore, revenues and associated expenses are not generated evenly during the year. InfrastruX will usually experience its highest revenues in the second and third quartersquarter of the year, as spring and summer months are routinely the most productive time of year for the construction industry due to longer daylight hours and generally better weather conditions.
InfrastruX’s operating strategy revolves around leveraging the synergies of a core group of outstanding infrastructure construction contractors whose asset base, expertise, local knowledge, relationships and years of successful operations form a strong base for a growing business. The ability to share workforce, production equipment and expertise within and between regional geographies allows InfrastruX to provide local support for its customers and also move quickly to provide additional services as needs arise. The formation of regional service centers in 2003, where appropriate, is providing enhanced oversight and control as well as cost efficiencies surrounding back office operations, equipment control and other operational areas.
The construction services industry is both highly competitive and highly fragmented as a result of low barriers to entry, the historical geographic segmentation of utility customers and the natural limitations of service delivery. Competitors of InfrastruX include large established and emerging national companies and many smaller regional companies. Puget Energy believes that InfrastruX’s competitive strengths, including a diverse customer base, long-standing relationships with several key customers and operational expertise in construction services will benefit InfrastruX, but there can be no assurance that a competitor will not be able to develop expertise, experience and resources to provide services that are superior in quality or price to InfrastruX’s services.

        While the general outlook appears to be improving, in the near term, InfrastruX’s market opportunities will continue to be constrained by the general economic and utility industry downturn that has resulted in reduced spending on infrastructure construction, including large pipeline and utility projects, by many of InfrastruX’s customers. As a result, competition on project bids will continue to be very strong, which may reduce profit margins and adversely impact revenue growth. Puget Energy management continues to believe that in the long term the opportunities for InfrastruX are excellent given an aging transmission and distribution infrastructure, forecasted growth in energy demand and the need for greater network infrastructure construction services.

EMPLOYEES
At December 31, 2003,February 23, 2005, Puget Energy and its subsidiaries had approximately 5,1644,900 full-time employees:


Puget Sound Energy2,155 2,200
InfrastruX3,009 2,700
Total Puget Energy5,164 
4,900


Approximately 1,100 PSE employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union (IBEW) or the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA). The labor contracts with the IBEW and UA run through 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Approximately 400300 InfrastruX employees are represented by the IBEW, UA, United Steelworkers of America, Laborers International Union of North America or other unions. Some unions have annual contract renewals while others have multiple-year contracts.



CORPORATE LOCATION
Puget Energy’s and PSE’s principal executive offices are located at 10885 N.E. 4thNE 4th Street, Suite 1200, Bellevue, Washington 98004 and the telephone number is (425) 454-6363.


AVAILABLE INFORMATION
        The Company’s website address is www.pse.com.
The Company’s reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available or may be accessed free of charge through the Investors section of the Company’s website at www.pse.com as soon as reasonably practicalpracticable after the reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. TheIt is not intended that the Company’s website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not intended to be incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Information may also be obtained via the SEC Internet website at www.sec.gov.
In addition, the following corporate governance materials of the Company are available in the Investors section of the Company’s website, and a copy will be mailed upon requestrequest. Requests should be made to Puget Energy, Inc., Investor Services, P.O. Box 97034, PSE-08S, Bellevue, Washington 98009-9734:

Corporate Governance Guidelines;98009-9734.
Corporate Ethics and Compliance Code
Audit Committee, Governance and Public Affairs Committee and Compensation and Leadership Development Committee charters;
·  Corporate Governance Guidelines;
Code of Ethics for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and senior financial officers.
·  Corporate Ethics and Compliance Code;
·  Audit Committee, Governance and Public Affairs Committee and Compensation and Leadership Development Committee charters; and
·  Code of Ethics for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and senior financial officers.

If the Company waives any material provision of its Code of Ethics for its Chief Executive Officer and senior financial officers or its Corporate Ethics and Compliance Code, or substantively changes the codes for any specific officer, the Company will disclose that waiver on its website within five business days.


NEW YORK STOCK EXHANGE CERTIFICATION
On May 6, 2004, the Chief Executive Officer of Puget Energy and PSE filed a Section 303A.12(a) CEO Certification with the New York Stock Exchange. The CEO Certification attests that the Chief Executive Officer is not aware of any violations by the Company of NYSE’s Corporate Governance Listing Standards.


PSE is subject to the regulatory authority of (1) the Washington Commission as to retail utility rates, accounting, the issuance of securities and certain other matters and (2) FERC with respect to the transmission of electric energy, the resale of electric energy at wholesale, accounting and certain other matters.


ELECTRIC RATESREGULATION AND REGULATION
RATES
WASHINGTON COMMISSION MATTERS
On October 24, 2003,February 18, 2005, the Washington Commission approved a 4% general tariff electric rate case increase to recover higher costs of providing electric service to customers. The rate increase will increase electric revenues by approximately $56.6 million annually effective March 4, 2005. In the order, the Washington Commission also approved a capital structure containing 43% common equity with a return on common equity of 10.3%. In the proceeding PSE had filed a request withfor an increase of 7.1% or $99.8 million annually on final rebuttal during the rate case, reflecting updated power costs for increases in natural gas prices for generating plants.
The Washington Commission issued an order on May 13, 2004 determining that PSE did not prudently manage gas costs for the Tenaska electric generating plant and ordered PSE to adjust its PCA deferral account to reflect a disallowance of $25.6 million for the PCA 1 period (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003), which was recorded by PSE as a Purchased Electricity expense in the second quarter 2004. The order also established guidelines for future recovery of Tenaska costs. The amounts were determined to be a $25.6 million disallowance for the PCA 1 period and an estimated disallowance of $11.3 million for the PCA 3 period (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005), based upon applying the Washington Commission’s methodology of 50% disallowance on the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset due to projected costs exceeding the benchmark during the period. For the PCA 3 period, approximately $5.6 million was disallowed in the period July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, primarily as a reduction to Electric Operating Revenue. While the Washington Commission did not expressly address the disallowance for the PCA 2 period (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004), PSE estimated the disallowance for the PCA 2 period to increase its electric rates $64.4be approximately $12.2 million to recover higher projected power supply costs. The proposed rate increase includes, among other things, the recovery of the projected costs associated with PSE’s proposed acquisition of a 49.85% share of Frederickson Power LP’s Frederickson 1 generation facility (250 MW) located near Tacoma, Washington.
        On January 30, 2004, the Washington Commission staff filed testimony responding to PSE’s filing. The Washington Commission staff’s testimony finds that the decision to acquire the interest in the Frederickson 1 plant was prudent and that PSE’s costs to do so were reasonable. Accordingly, the Washington Commission staff recommended to the Washington Commission that PSE’s costs be recovered in rates. No other party filed testimony questioning the decision or costs to acquire the Frederickson 1 plant. Favorable treatment of this acquisition will benefit PSE’s customers and PSE going forward.
        In the same proceeding, Washington Commission staff and other parties, including the group Industrial Customers of the Northwest Utilities (ICNU), filed testimony seeking downward adjustments to PSE’s proposed electric rate increase. Among other things, they propose that a significant amount of PSE’s future fuel costs associated with an electric generating facility be disallowed for recovery in electric rates based upon their interpretation of a 1994 Commission Order and a contention that PSE should have secured fixed-price fuel supply options that were available in late 1997. After factoring in such proposed fuel supply disallowances and certain lower estimates of future power costs which would be trued-up to incurred actuals through PSE’s PCA mechanism, the Washington Commission staff recommends a net rate increase of $7.5 million as compared to PSE’s requested $64.4 million. Ifif the Washington Commission were to adoptfollow the same methodology as they have ordered for the PCA 3 period. Therefore, PSE recorded a $12.2 million disallowance to Purchased Electricity expense in the second quarter 2004 for the 50% disallowance of the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset in accordance with the Washington Commission’s methodology discussed in their order of May 13, 2004 for a cumulative impact on earnings of $43.4 million in 2004 for the PCA 1, PCA 2 and PCA 3 periods. PSE has filed the PCA 2 period compliance filing and anticipates it will be concluded no later than the first quarter 2005. As a result of the disallowance recorded, the PCA customer deferral was expensed and a reserve was established for amounts not previously deferred under the PCA mechanism. The reserve balance as of December 31, 2004 was $3.2 million, which is expected to be utilized in 2005 as excess power costs are shared through the PCA mechanism.
PSE filed the PCA 2 period compliance filing in August 2004 and received an order from the Washington Commission on February 23, 2005. In the PCA 2 compliance order, the Washington Commission approved the Washington Commission staff’s or ICNU’s recommendations,recommendation for an additional return related to the proposed fuelTenaska regulatory asset in the amount of $6.1 million related to the period July 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. Washington Commission staff’s recommendation was opposed by certain other parties. This amount alters the PCA deferral and is subject to reconsideration and appeal by other parties. Parties have 10 days from February 23, 2005 to file for reconsideration and 30 days to appeal the order. Once the statutory appeal process has concluded and the Washington Commission issues its final order, PSE will determine if recording a regulatory asset is appropriate.
In the May 13, 2004 order, the Washington Commission established guidelines and a benchmark to determine PSE’s recovery on the Tenaska regulatory asset starting with the PCA 3 period (July 1, 2004) through the expiration of the Tenaska contract in the year 2011. The benchmark is defined as the original cost disallowancesof the Tenaska contract adjusted to reflect the 1.2% disallowance from a 1994 Prudence Order.
The Washington Commission guidelines for determining future recovery of the Tenaska costs (gas costs, recovery of the Tenaska regulatory asset and return on the Tenaska regulatory asset) are as follows:
1.  The Washington Commission will determine if PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent through the PCA compliance filings.
2.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent, and if PSE’s actual Tenaska costs fall at or below the benchmark, it will recover fully its Tenaska costs.
3.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent, but its actual Tenaska costs exceed the benchmark, PSE will only recover 50% of the lesser of:
a)  actual Tenaska costs that exceed the benchmark; or
b)  the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset.
4.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan or gas purchases are found to be imprudent in a future proceeding, PSE risks disallowance of any and all Tenaska costs.
The Washington Commission confirmed that if the Tenaska gas costs are deemed prudent, PSE will recover the full amount of actual gas costs and the recovery of the Tenaska regulatory asset even if the benchmark is exceeded.
In the first quarter 2004, a counterparty of a physical gas supply contract for one of PSE’s electric generating facilities notified PSE that it would adversely affect PSE’sbe unable to deliver physical gas supply beginning in November 2005 through the end of the contract in June 2008. In October 2004, PSE and the counterparty reached a settlement on the non-deliverable period of November 2005 through June 2008. The agreement allows PSE to recover a portion of the present value of the difference in future financial performance.


market prices of physical gas and the original contract price, for a total recovery of approximately $10.1 million. In October 2004, PSE believes thatentered into a new contract with another counterparty for the fuel cost disallowances proposedperiod November 2005 through June 2008 to replace the physical gas supply from the previously mentioned amended contract. Also, in the fourth quarter 2004, an accounting order was approved by the Washington Commission staff are legallyto defer the counterparty settlement amount as a regulatory liability and factually deficient, and PSE filedamortize the benefit over the period of November 2005 through June 2008 as a reduction in Electric Generation Fuel expense. In its rebuttal case on February 13, 2004. Washington Commission staff is independent fromaccounting order, the Washington Commission in such a litigated proceeding and their positions do not represent an indicationreserved the right to review the prudence of the final outcomelevel of settlement payments agreed to and the cost of the proceeding. The hearing was held in late February and the resolution of the power cost only rate case is expected by mid-April 2004. Another step in completing the acquisition of the power generating facility is to obtain the approval of FERC in accordance with the Federal Power Act (FPA). In December 2003, FERC issued an order in a case involving Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OGE) that suggested that FERC would scrutinize these transactions. In the OGE case, FERC has decided to hold hearings to analyze the effects on market share and transmission availability that would flow from the OGE acquisition. PSE took that decision into account when it filed its application in January 2004. FERC issued a letter on February 12, 2004 in response to PSE’s filing seeking additional information. PSE responded to the request on February 27, 2004, and still anticipates FERC approval of the acquisition in early 2004.
        PSE is currently preparing to file a general tariff electric rate case with the Washington Commission in the second quarter of 2004. The resolution of the general rate case may be up to an 11-month process from the time the general rate case is filed.
replacement contract during any affected PCA periods going forward.

On June 20, 2002, the Washington Commission issued final regulatory approval of the comprehensive electric rate settlement submitted by PSE, key constituents and customer groups, Washington Commission staff and the Washington State Attorney General’s Public Counsel Section. The authorization granted PSE a 4.6% electric general rate increase that began July 1, 2002, which was intended to generate approximately $59 million in additional revenue annually. In addition, the settlement provided for an 8.76% overall return on capital based on a projected capital structure with an equity component of 40% and an authorized 11% return on common equity. The settlement resolved all electric and gas cost allocation issues and established an 8.76% overall return on capital.
The settlement also included a PCAPower Cost Adjustment (PCA) mechanism that triggers if PSE’s costs to provide customers’ electricity falls outside certain bands from a normalized level of power costs established in the electric general rate case. The cumulative maximum pre-tax earnings exposure due to power cost variations over the four-year period ending June 30, 2006 is limited to $40 million plus 1% of the excess. Upon expiration of the $40 million cumulative cap, the annual power cost variability is subject to the bands in the table below. All significant variable power supply cost drivers are included in the PCA mechanism (hydroelectric generation variability, market price variability for purchased power and surplus power sales, natural gas and coal fuel price variability, generation unit forced outage risk and wheeling cost variability).
Upon expiration of the cumulative cap, the most significant risks are hydroelectric generation variability and wholesale market prices of natural gas and power. On an annual July through June basis, the PCA mechanism apportions increases or decreases in power costs, on a graduated scale, between PSE and its customers in the following manner:

Annual Power
Cost Variability
Customers' ShareCompany's Share (1)
+/- $20 million 0%100%
+/- $20-$40 million 50%50%
+/- $40-$120 million 90%10%
+/- $120+ million 95%5%

        (1)   Over the four-year period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006, the Company’s share of pre-tax power cost variations is capped at a cumulative $40 million plus 1% of the excess.


ANNUAL POWER
COST AVAILABILITY
 
CUSTOMERS’ SHARE
 
COMPANY’S SHARE1
+/- $20 million0%100%
+/- $20 - $40 million50%50%
+/- $40 - $120 million90%10%
+/- $120 million95%5%
__________________________
1  
Over the four-year period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006, the Company’s share of pre-tax power cost variations is capped at a cumulative $40 million plus 1% of the excess. Power cost variation after June 30, 2006 will be apportioned on an annual basis, based on the graduated scale.

Interest will be accrued on any overcollection or undercollection of the customers’ share of the excess power cost that is deferred. PSE can request a PCA rate surcharge, if for any 12-month period, the actual or projected deferred power costs exceed $30 million. PSE’s cumulative share of the excess power costs through December 31, 20032004 was $40 million. Principally$35.0 million, principally because of adverse hydrohydroelectric conditions, escalating wholesale gas and escalating gaspower costs forin 2003 and 2004 and a May 2004 Washington Commission order in the PCA 1 compliance filing which stated PSE was not prudent in managing the Tenaska electric generation in 2003,facility gas cost and ordered PSE reached the $40 million cumulative cap underto adjust its PCA deferral account to reflect a disallowance for the PCA mechanism in the fourth quarter of 2003. During 2003,1 period (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003). PSE’s share of the excess power costs, including the effect of the Tenaska disallowance, was $36.5 million in 2004 compared to $34.8 million compared to $5.2 million for 2002. Underin 2003. As a result of the PCA mechanism,Tenaska disallowance reserve, any further increases in variable power costs in excess of the cap under the PCA mechanism through June 30, 2006 would be apportioned 99% to customers and 1% to PSE.  PSE is required to file a Compliance Filingcompliance filing with the Washington Commission annually on June 30,by August 31, in relation to the power costs under the PCA mechanism.
mechanism for the relevant 12 month period ending June 30.
The settlement also gave PSE the financial flexibility to rebuild its common equity ratio to at least 39% over a three-and-one-half-year period, with milestones of 34%, 36% and 39% at the end of 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. If PSE should fail to meet this schedule, it would be subject to a 2% rate reduction penalty. As of December 31, 2003,2004, PSE has restored its common equity ratio to a 40%40.1% level, exceeding the required level for 2004 by 4.1%.
In the settlement of the 2001 Electric General Rate Proceeding, the Washington Commission and PSE agreed to create a limited-scope proceeding called a Power Cost Only Rate Case (PCORC) that would periodically reset power cost rates. The main objective of the PCORC proceeding is to provide for timely review of new resource acquisitions and inclusion of those costs into rates by the time the new resource goes into service. To achieve this objective, the Washington Commission and PSE have agreed to a non-binding, expedited five-month timeline rather than the statutory 11-month timeline that is allowed in a general rate case.
On October 24, 2003, PSE filed a PCORC proceeding under this 2001 rate case provision for the acquisition and recovery in rates of a 49.85% interest in the Frederickson 1 generating facility, located in Washington State. On April 23, 2004, the acquisition of the Frederickson 1 generating facility was approved by 6%.


FERC. Prior to that approval, on April 7, 2004, the Washington Commission issued an order in PSE’s PCORC granting approval for the acquisition of the Frederickson 1 generating facility as well. As a result of these approvals, PSE completed the acquisition in the second quarter 2004. In its order, the Washington Commission found the acquisition to be prudent and the costs associated with the generating facility reasonable. The costs associated with the generating facility, including projected baseline gas costs, are approved for recovery in rates. The Washington Commission subsequently ordered on May 13, 2004, an increase of cost recovery in rates of $44.1 million annually, beginning May 24, 2004, which includes the ownership, operation and fuel costs of the Frederickson 1 generating facility.

RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL FARM EXCHANGE BENEFIT CREDIT
In June 2001, PSE and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) entered into an amended settlement agreement regarding the Residential Purchase and Sale Program, under which PSE’s residential and small farm customers would continue to receive the benefits of federal power. Completion of this agreement enabled PSE to continue to provide a Residential and Farm Energy Exchange Benefit creditCredit to residential and small farm customers. The amended settlement agreement provides that, for its residential and small farm customers, PSE will receive:receive; (a) cash payment benefits during the period July 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006, and (b) benefits in the form of power or cash payments during the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2011.
Under the amended settlement agreement regarding the Residential Purchase and Sale Program, PSE reduces residential and small farm customerscustomers’ revenue on a per kWh basis through the Residential and Farm Energy Exchange Benefit credit.Credit. The credit has no impact on PSE’s electric margin or net income, as a corresponding reduction is included in purchased electricity expenses. The amended settlement agreement regarding the Residential Purchase and Sale Program provides PSE’s residential and small farm customers the benefits of lower-cost federal power.
        On
In June 17, 2002, PSE entered into an agreement with BPA, which modified the payment provisions of the June 2001 amended settlement agreement to provide for conditional deferral of payment by BPA of certain amounts to be paid under the original agreement. Under the modified agreement BPA deferred paying a portion of the benefits it would have otherwise paid. The amount of benefits deferred was $3.5 million eachfor an eight month for the eight-month period beginning February 2003, for a total deferral of $27.7 million. Contemporaneously with entering into this agreement with PSE, BPA entered into other agreements similar to the agreement with PSE through which other investor-owned utilities and BPA agreed to BPA’s deferral of payments in its fiscal year 2003. The total cumulative amount deferred under the agreement with PSE and other such agreements equals $55 million. AbsentExcept for certain adjustments tied to a BPA rate adjustment clause, BPA willis to begin paying back the amount deferred with interest over thea 60-month period beginning October 1, 2006.
In January 2003, PSE filed revised tariff sheets with the Washington Commission to reflect this modification to the agreement between PSE and BPA. The Washington Commission accepted the tariff changes and the Residential and Farm Energy Exchange Benefit creditCredit was changed to $0.01740 per kWh from $0.01817 per kWh for the period February 15, 2003 through September 30, 2006.
On June 30, 2003, BPA adopted its final Record of Decision in the February 2003 rate case, which established a formula under the BPA rate adjustment clause to be used in adjusting the rate that will affect the level of residential exchange benefits for PSE’s customers. The adjustment under the formula went into effect on October 1, 2003, resulting in both a reduction of benefits of $1.0 million a month for a 12-month period and, under the modified amended settlement agreement mentioned above, an offsetting acceleration of the payment of the above-described $27.7 million deferral. The net result is no change in the cash being received from BPA for the 12-month period, but a reduction in the total benefits to be received in the October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2011 period.
In May 2004, PSE and BPA entered into an agreement that modified the payment of benefits under the amended settlement agreement for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2011. The agreement provides that all benefits in this period will be in the form of cash payments only and defined a new methodology to be used to calculate the residential benefits. In addition, PSE agreed to waive payment of approximately one-half of an available reduction-in-risk discount and deferred payment of the other half of the discount, plus interest, until October 2007.
For 20032004 and 2002,2003, the Residential and Farm Energy Exchange Benefit credited to customers was $181.9$182.6 million and $156.8$181.9 million, respectively, with a related offset to power costs. PSE received payments from BPA in the amount of $175.9 million and $147.9 million during 2004 and $171.2 million during 2003, and 2002, respectively. The difference between the customers’ credit and the amount received from BPA either increases or decreases the previously deferred amount owed to customers. The aggregated deferred amount is recorded on PSE’s balance sheet as restricted cash. Absent certain adjustments tied to the BPA rate adjustment clause described above, the modified amended settlement agreement will provide for payments from BPA in the amount of $630.6 million for the period January 2003 through September 2006 and for a pass-through of the same amount to eligible residential and small farm customers.
        On October 23, 2003, PSE signed conditional settlement agreements including a Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement, a Waiver and Covenant Not to Sue, and an Amendment No. 1 to the amended settlement agreement. These conditional settlement agreements, which are now void because certain conditions were not satisfied, included provisions for the dismissal of certain lawsuits regarding residential exchange benefits, an elimination of the adjustment mentioned above for the 12-month period commencing October 1, 2003, the deferral of the receipt of certain benefits, a change in the methodology used to calculate residential benefits in the October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2011 period, and elimination of a risk premium that would otherwise have been payable by BPA under certain conditions under the amended settlement agreement.


There are several actions in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against BPA, in which the petitioners assert or may assert that BPA acted contrary to law or without authority in deciding to enter into, or in entering into or performing, a number of contracts, including the amended settlement agreement and the conditional settlement agreementsMay 2004 agreement between BPA and PSE described above. BPA rates used in such amended settlement agreement between BPA and PSE for determining the amounts of money to be paid to PSE as residential exchange benefitsby BPA under the amended settlement agreement and other agreements described above during the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 have been confirmed, approved and allowed to go into effect by FERC. There are also several actions in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against BPA, in which petitioners assert that BPA acted contrary to law in adopting or implementing the rates or rate adjustment clause upon which the benefits received or to be received from BPA during the October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 period are based. It is not clear what impact, if any, review of such rates and the above-described District Court andabove described U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actions may have on PSE.

FERC MATTERS
PSE’s market-based rate tariff was accepted by FERC in an order dated January 29, 1999. Pursuant to this order, PSE is required to file an updated market power analysis every three years. On August 11, 2004, PSE filed an updated market power analysis with FERC as required by a FERC order dated May 13, 2004. The August 11, 2004 filing was supplemented by additional filings on September 24, 2004 and November 19, 2004. On December 20, 2004, FERC issued an order (December 20 order) finding that PSE had not provided sufficient information for FERC to determine if PSE had passed the generation market power screens with respect to wholesale sales within PSE’s control area. The order instituted an investigation under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and established a prospective refund date of February 27, 2005. Both the proceeding and the refund effective date affect only wholesale sales at market-based rates by PSE inside its own control area. On February 1, 2005, PSE submitted to FERC additional information in accordance with the December 20 order. PSE has been in discussions with FERC staff to ensure that this supplemental filing addresses the staff’s issues. Although PSE anticipates a favorable outcome to this matter, there can be no assurance that the outcome will not materially impact PSE.
On November 1, 1999, PSE acquired Encogen Northwest, LP (Encogen) whose sole asset is a natural gas-fired cogeneration facility located in Washington State. With the approval of the Washington Commission, the Encogen facility has been operated as part of PSE’s least cost generation dispatch portfolio to serve its native load obligations since it was acquired in 1999. Two wholly-owned subsidiaries of PSE, GP Acquisition Corporation and LP Acquisition Corporation, are the general and limited partners of Encogen, respectively. On December 29, 2004, PSE filed an application with FERC pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA to transfer the Encogen facility to PSE and eliminate the various subsidiaries via an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger). On February 15, 2005, FERC issued an order authorizing the Encogen plant to be transferred to PSE. PSE anticipates completing the Merger in 2005.

GAS RATESREGULATION AND REGULATION
RATES
In 2003, the Washington Commission’s Pipeline Safety staff conducted a natural gas standard inspection for three counties within Washington State in which PSE operates gas pipelines. The inspection included a review of procedures, records and operations and maintenance activities. On June 29, 2004, the Washington Commission issued a complaint to PSE related to that inspection, alleging certain violations of Washington Commission regulations. In December 2004, PSE and the Washington Commission resolved the issues. PSE agreed to a penalty of $0.5 million, and also agreed to update certain natural gas operating practices. PSE’s financial results in 2004 reflect the impact of this penalty. In addition, the resolution included the potential for future penalties of up to $0.2 million in the next ten years if certain operational goals are not met. The Washington Commission approved the settlement on January 31, 2005.
PSE has a PGA mechanism in retail gas rates to recover variations in gas supply and transportation costs. The PGA mechanism passes through to customers these variations in gas rates, and therefore PSE’s gas margin and net income are not affected by changes in the PGA rates. The following rate adjustments were approved by the Washington Commission in relation to the PGA mechanism during 2004, 2003 2002 and 2001:

EFFECTIVE DATE
PERCENTAGE INCREASE
(DECREASE) IN RATES

ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE)
IN REVENUES
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

October 1, 2003   13.3%$78.8
April 10, 2003   20.1% 103.6
November 1, 2002   (12.5)% (70.6)
September 1, 2002   (7.3)% (45.0)
June 1, 2002   (21.2)% (138.9)
September 1, 2001   (8.9)% (81.1)
January 12, 2001   26.4% 163.5

2002:


EFFECTIVE DATE
PERCENTAGE INCREASE
(DECREASE) IN RATES
ANNUAL INCREASE (DECREASE)
IN REVENUES
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
October 1, 200417.6%$121.7
October 1, 200313.3%78.8
April 10, 200320.1%103.6
November 1, 2002(12.5)%(70.6)
September 1, 2002(7.3)%(45.0)
June 1, 2002(21.2)%(138.9)
On February 18, 2005, the Washington Commission approved a 3.5% general tariff gas rate case increase to recover higher costs of providing natural gas service to customers. The rate increase will increase gas revenues by approximately $26.3 million annually, effective March 4, 2005. In the order, the Washington Commission also approved a capital structure containing 43% common equity with a return on common equity of 10.3%. In the proceeding, PSE had filed a request for an increase of 6.3% or $46.2 million annually on final rebuttal during the rate case for gas customers.
On August 28, 2002, the Washington Commission approved a 5.8% gas rate increase in general rates to coverrecover higher costs of providing natural gas services to customers. The increase was intended to provide approximately $35.6 million annually in revenues. This rate increase became effective September 1, 2002.

        PSE is currently preparing to file a general tariff gas rate case with the Washington Commission in the second quarter of 2004. The resolution of the general rate case may be up to an 11-month process from the time the general rate case is filed.


FEDERAL REGULATION
Since the mid-1990s, FERC has required public utilities operating under the FPA to provide open access of their transmission systems to third parties under tariffs approved by FERC. As a result of open access, thereThere has been no material effect on the financial statements of PSE.
PSE as a result of open access.
FERC Order No. 2000, issued on December 20, 1999, required all utilities subject to its jurisdiction that own, operate or control transmission facilities to either voluntarily form or participate in a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO); or, alternatively, describe its efforts to participate in an RTO or obstacles to such participation. PSE has been an active participant in regional efforts to form an RTO in the Pacific Northwest since issuance of Order No. 2000. Currently, PSE is working with nine other utilities on the formation of an RTO in the region known as Grid West. Any decision by PSE to participate in Grid West (or other RTO proposal) will depend on the ultimate form of the organization including terms and conditions for participation. Furthermore, any such decision will require approval of FERC, the Washington Commission and the boards of directors of the participating utilities. PSE cannot predict the outcome of efforts to form or participate in an RTO or whether any future decision to join (or not join) an RTO will have a material impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.
On July 31, 2002, FERC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Remedying Undue Discrimination through Open Access Transmission Service and Standard Electricity Market Design (SMD NOPR). TheOn April 28, 2003, FERC issued a white paper entitled “Wholesale Power Market Platform” (White Paper) that significantly modified the proposal outlined in the SMD NOPR. A modification of the wholesale electricity markets as provided in either the SMD NOPR or the White Paper would have major implications for the delivery of electric energy throughout the United States if enacted in its proposed form.States. Major elements of FERC’s proposal include: (a) Thea change to allow FERC to exercise jurisdiction over the non-rate terms and conditions for bundled retail sales, but leave the rate component under state jurisdiction; (b) require vertically integrated utilities to join an RTO or an Independent System Operator (ISO) to operate their transmission systems; and (c) require regions to develop an approach to manage congestion, encourage efficient use of Network Access Service would replace the existing networktransmission grid and point-to-point services. All customers, including load-serving entities on behalfpromote the use of bundled retail load, would be required to take network service under a new pro forma tariff. (b) Vertically integrated utilities would be required to retain Independent Transmission Providers to administer the new tariff and functionally operate transmission systems. (c) Regional State Advisory Committees and other regional entities would form to coordinate the planning, certification and siting of new transmission facilities in cooperation with states.lowest cost generation. State regulators, congressional delegates and industry representatives have pointed out that the western North American electricity market has unique characteristics that may not readily lend themselvesitself to the SMD NOPRmarket design proposed by FERC. In addition, Congress has proposed, but not passed, draft legislation that would require FERC has expressedto delay and reconsider its willingness to offer regional flexibility in its order on RTO West, Docket Nos. RT01-35-005 and RT01-35-007, issued September 18, 2002. In April 2003, FERC issued a white paper responding to concerns of state regulators regarding the impact of the SMD NOPR proposal on the western market.market design proposal. PSE cannot predict the outcome of the SMD NOPR or whether the ultimate resolution will have a material impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.


STATE REGULATION
The electric utility business in the State of Washington is fully regulated and provides service to its customers under cost-based tariff rates. PSE is not aware of any proposals or prospects for retail deregulation in the State of Washington.
Since 1986, PSE has been offering gas transportation as a separate service to industrial and commercial customers who choose to purchase their gas supply directly from producers and gas marketers. The continued evolution of the natural gas industry, resulting primarily from FERC Orders 436, 500 and 636, has served to increase the ability of large gas end-users to independently obtain gas supply from third parties and transportation services.services directly from the interstate pipelines or other third parties. Although PSE has not lost any substantial industrial or commercial load as a result of such activities, in certain years up to 160 customers annually have taken advantage of unbundled transportation service; in 2003, 134service. In 2004, 129 commercial and industrial customers, on average, chose to use such service. The shifting of customers frombetween sales toand transportation service does not materially impact utility margin, as PSE earns similar margins on transportation service as it does on large-volume, interruptible gas sales.



ELECTRIC OPERATING STATISTICS

TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 312003 2002 2001 

  Generation and purchased power-kWh (thousands):        
    Company-controlled resources   6,965,840  6,996,276  9,684,087 
    Contracted resources   11,021,471  12,085,729  11,901,762 
    Non-firm energy purchased   8,121,009  7,584,398  6,987,319 

      Total generation and purchased power   26,108,320  26,666,403  28,573,168 
      Less losses and company use   (1,338,401) (1,341,126) (1,152,840)

  Total energy sold, kWh   24,769,919  25,325,277  27,420,328 

  Electric energy sales, kWh (thousands):  
    Residential   9,845,854  9,845,527  9,555,264 
    Commercial   8,222,166  8,012,538  7,953,165 
    Industrial   1,372,815  1,416,107  2,540,722 
    Other customers   93,438  90,840  154,749 

       Total energy billed to customers   19,534,273  19,365,012  20,203,900 
    Unbilled energy sales - net increase (decrease)   65,082  (102,811) (278,392)

       Total energy sales to customers   19,599,355  19,262,201  19,925,508 
    Sales to other utilities and marketers   5,170,564  6,063,076  7,494,820 

       Total energy sales, kWh   24,769,919  25,325,277  27,420,328 

    Less: optimization purchases for sales to other  
     utilities and marketers   (62,200) (2,596,505) (2,512,478)
    Transportation, including unbilled   2,020,562  2,307,081  363,826 

       Net electric energy sales and transported, kWh   26,728,281  25,035,853  25,271,676 

  Electric operating revenues by classes (thousands):  
    Residential  $603,722 $616,522 $583,714 
    Commercial   556,038  536,021  509,134 
    Industrial   88,201  90,121  281,161 
    Other customers   54,259  26,500  25,351 

    Operating revenues billed to customers1   1,302,220  1,269,164  1,399,360 
    Unbilled revenues - net increase (decrease)   4,193  (7,118) (70,615)

      Total operating revenues from customers   1,306,413  1,262,046  1,328,745 
    Transportation, including unbilled   11,542  15,551  2,537 
    Sales to other utilities and marketers   193,714  152,736  1,021,376 
    Less: optimization purchases for sales to other  
     utilities and marketers   (2,206) (64,448) (487,431)

      Total electric operating revenues  $1,509,463 $1,365,885 $1,865,227 

  Number of customers served (average):  
    Residential   854,088  839,878  826,187 
    Commercial   108,479  104,273  100,015 
    Industrial   3,952  3,953  4,012 
    Other   2,060  1,932  1,758 
    Transportation   16  16  5 

      Total customers (average)   968,595  950,052  931,977 

  Average retail revenues per kWh sold:  
   Residential  $0.0617 $0.0632 $0.0628 
   Commercial   0.0680  0.0675  0.0655 
   Industrial   0.0650  0.0649  0.1120 
     Average retail revenue per kWh sold   0.0646  0.0651  0.0701 

  Average revenue billed to residential customers  $711 $741 $726 
  Average kWh used by residential customers   11,528  11,723  11,565 

  Heating degree days   4,527  4,946  4,993 
  Percent of normal - NOAA 30-year average   94.4%  103.1%  104.1% 

Load factor   73.5%  61.6%  59.8% 


TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
2004
 
2003
 
2002
 
Generation and purchased power, MWh       
Company-controlled resources  7,048,270  6,965,840  6,996,276 
Contracted resources  9,421,546  11,021,471  12,085,729 
Non-firm energy purchased1
  6,164,457  5,179,302  4,795,045 
Total generation and purchased power  22,634,273  23,166,613  23,877,050 
Less: losses and company use  (1,432,686) (1,338,401) (1,341,126)
Total energy sales, MWh  21,201,587  21,828,212  22,535,924 
Electric energy sales, MWh          
Residential  10,028,150  9,845,854  9,845,527 
Commercial  8,449,566  8,222,166  8,012,538 
Industrial  1,352,660  1,372,815  1,416,107 
Other customers  94,034  93,438  90,840 
Total energy billed to customers  19,924,410  19,534,273  19,365,012 
Unbilled energy sales - net increase (decrease)  (40,217) 65,082  (102,811)
Total energy sales to customers  19,884,193  19,599,355  19,262,201 
Sales to other utilities and marketers1
  1,317,394  2,228,857  3,273,723 
Total energy sales, MWh  21,201,587  21,828,212  22,535,924 
Less: optimization purchases for sales to other utilities and marketers  --  
(62,200
)
 
(2,596,505
)
Transportation, including unbilled  1,988,965  2,020,562  2,307,081 
Net electric energy sales and transported, MWh  23,190,552  23,786,574  22,246,500 
__________________________

1  
Non-firm energy purchased and Sales to other utilities and marketers in 2003 and 2002 were revised as a result of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03” (EITF No. 03-11), which became effective January 1, 2004. MWh from other utility and marketers/non-firm energy purchased in 2003 and 2002 were reduced 2,941,707 MWh and 2,789,353 MWh, respectively.




TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
2004
 
2003
 
2002
 
Electric operating revenues by classes (thousands):       
Residential $628,869 $603,722 $616,522 
Commercial  580,973  556,038  536,021 
Industrial  88,779  88,201  90,121 
Other customers  58,007  54,259  26,500 
Operating revenues billed to customers1
  1,356,628  1,302,220  1,269,164 
Unbilled revenues - net increase (decrease)  (813) 4,193  (7,118)
Total operating revenues from customers  1,355,815  1,306,413  1,262,046 
Transportation, including unbilled  10,707  11,542  15,551 
Sales to other utilities and marketers2
  56,512  84,994  75,595 
Less: optimization purchases for sales to other utilities and marketers  --  
(2,206
)
 
(64,448
)
Total electric operating revenues $1,423,034 $1,400,743 $1,288,744 
Number of customers served (average):          
Residential  874,205  854,088  839,878 
Commercial  109,660  108,479  104,273 
Industrial  3,953  3,952  3,953 
Other  2,194  2,060  1,932 
Transportation  17  16  16 
Total customers (average)  990,029  968,595  950,052 
Average retail revenues per kWh sold:          
Residential $0.0627 $0.0617 $0.0632 
Commercial  0.0688  0.0680  0.0675 
Industrial  0.0656  0.0650  0.0649 
Average retail revenue per kWh sold  0.0655  0.0646  0.0651 
Average revenue billed to residential customers $719 $711 $741 
Average kWh used by residential customers  11,471  11,528  11,723 
Heating degree days  4,421  4,527  4,946 
Percent of normal- NOAA 30-year average
  91.8% 94.4% 103.1%
Load factor  53.5% 58.9% 61.6%
__________________________
1  
Operating revenues in 2004, 2003 and 2002 were reduced by $0.8 million, $7.7 million and $12.7 million, respectively, as a result of the Company’s sale of $237.7 million of its investment in customer-owned conservation measures in 1995 and 1997. Beginning in July 2003, these related revenues were consolidated as a result of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46. (See Operating Revenues-Electric in Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.) As of October 2004, the conservation trust bond was fully redeemed and any excess collection was recorded as a reduction in revenues.
2  
Sales to other utilities and marketers in 2003 and 2002 were revised as a result of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03” (EITF No. 03-11), which became effective January 1, 2004. Revenues from other utilities and marketers in 2003 and 2002 were reduced by $108.7 million and $77.1 million, respectively


At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE’s peak electric power resources were approximately 4,537,495 KW.4,351 MW. PSE’s historical peak load of approximately 4,847,000 KW4,847 MW occurred on December 21, 1998. In order to meet an extreme winter peak load, PSE supplements its electric power resources with winter-peaking call options and other instruments that may include, but are not limited to, weather-related hedges and exchange agreements. During 2003,2004, PSE’s total electric energy production was supplied 26.7%31.1% by its own resources, 19.9%23.1% through long-term contracts with several of the Washington Public Utility Districts (PUDs) that own hydroelectric projects on the Columbia River, and 22.3%18.6% from other firm purchases. Short-term wholesale purchases, net of sales to other utilities and marketers, accounted for 14.1%22.7% of energy purchasesproduction in 2003.2004.


The following table shows PSE’s electric energy supply resources at December 31, 20032004 and 2002,2003, and energy production during the year:

  
PEAK POWER RESOURCES
AT DECEMBER 31,
 ENERGY PRODUCTION 
  2004 2003 2004 2003 
  MW       % MW       %  MWh          %     MWh       % 
Purchased resources:                         
Columbia River PUD contracts  1,350  31.0% 1,349  30.0% 5,231,691  23.1% 5,191,346  22.4%
Other hydroelectric1
  177  4.1% 177  3.9% 600,557  2.7% 622,900  2.7%
Other producers1
  1,011  23.2% 1,210  26.9% 3,589,298  15.9% 5,207,225  22.5%
Short-term wholesale energy purchases2
  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  6,164,457  27.2% 5,179,302  22.4%
Total purchased  2,538  58.3% 2,736  60.8% 15,586,003  68.9% 16,200,773  70.0%
Company-controlled resources:                         
Hydroelectric  234  5.4% 304  6.7% 1,130,180  5.0% 1,238,900  5.3%
Coal  677  15.6% 677  15.1% 5,119,002  22.6% 4,950,734  21.4%
Natural gas/oil  902  20.7% 778  17.4% 799,088  3.5% 776,206  3.3%
Total Company-controlled  1,813  41.7% 1,759  39.2% 7,048,270  31.1% 6,965,840  30.0%
Total  4,351  100.0% 4,495  100.0% 22,634,273  100.0% 23,166,613  100.0%
__________________________
1  
PEAK POWER RESOURCES
AT DECEMBER 31,Power received from other utilities is classified between hydroelectric and other producers based on the character of the utility system used to supply the power or, if the power is supplied from a particular resource, the character of that resource.

ENERGY PRODUCTION
(IN THOUSANDS)

 2003200220032002

  KW % KW % kWh % kWh % 

  Purchased resources: 
   Columbia River PUD contracts 1,349,460 29.8%1,391,000 30.4%5,191,346 19.9%5,988,118 22.5%
   Other hydro1 177,160 3.9%175,660 3.8%622,900 2.4%717,215 2.7%
   Other producers1 1,209,675 26.7%1,209,675 26.4%5,207,225 19.9%5,380,396 20.2%
   Short-term wholesale energy
      purchases2
 N/A  N/AN/A  N/A8,121,009 31.1%7,584,398 28.4%

  Total purchased 2,736,295 60.4%2,776,335 60.6%19,142,480 73.3%19,670,127 73.8%

  Company-controlled resources: 
    Hydro 310,400 6.8%300,000 6.6%1,238,900 4.7%1,351,540 5.1%
    Coal 700,000 15.4%700,000 15.3%4,950,734 19.0%4,627,901 17.3%
    Natural gas/oil 790,800 17.4%800,800 17.5%776,206 3.0%1,016,835 3.8%

  Total Company-controlled 1,801,200 39.6%1,800,800 39.4%6,965,840 26.7%6,996,276 26.2%

  Total 4,537,495 100.0%4,577,135 100.0%26,108,320 100.0%26,666,403 100.0%

2  
Short-term wholesale purchases net of resales of 1,317,394 MWh and 2,228,857 MWh account for 22.7% and 14.1% of energy production for 2004 and 2003, respectively.

LEAST COST PLAN
PSE filed its electric Least Cost Plan on April 30, 2003 with the Washington Commission. The plan supported a strategy of diverse electric power resource acquisitions including resources fueled by natural gas and coal, renewable resources (e.g., wind) and shared resources. A Least Cost Plan Update was filed in August 2003, which integrated conservationefficiency programs into the resource mix. The Least Cost Plan was followed with the proposed acquisition of a gas combined-cycle combustion turbine, and the issuing of a wind resource RFPRequest for Proposal (RFP) in December 2003. An all-source RFP was issued in February 2004.


PSE is in the process of updating its Least Cost Plan which is expected to be filed with the Washington Commission in the first half of 2005.

Based upon PSE’s projected customer usage for electricity and its current electric generation resources, PSE projects that future energy needs will exceed current purchased and Company-controlled power resources. The projected MW shortfall at December 31, 2004 for the period 2006-2010 is as follows:
 20062007200820092010
Projected MW Shortfall1
208263305360457
__________________________
1  
Estimated using all resources under long-term contract and Company-controlled resources. Also includes anticipated acquisitions of the Hopkins Ridge and Wild Horse wind projects which are currently under review.

COMPANY-CONTROLLEDPSE signed a non-binding letter of intent on October 29, 2004 to acquire a 100% interest in a 150 MW (52 average MW) wind powered electric generation facility to be developed in eastern Washington State. PSE anticipates spending up to $200 million on the project, which it will solely own once complete. This total includes approximately $180 million to acquire and construct the wind plant, $10 million to fund upgrades to the transmission systems of BPA and other regional transmission providers and approximately $10 million on financing and other costs. The proposed purchase transaction could occur as early as the end of the first quarter 2005, and if completed, construction on the project is anticipated to be completed sometime between late 2005 and mid 2006.
On September 1, 2004, PSE signed a second non-binding letter of intent to acquire a 100% interest in a 230 MW (77 average MW) wind powered electric generation facility to be developed in central Washington State. The estimated cost of the project is approximately $300 million, depending on design options. The proposed transaction is anticipated to be completed on or before January 1, 2006 and construction on the project is anticipated to be completed in 2006.

COMPANYCONTROLLED ELECTRIC GENERATION RESOURCES
At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE has the following plants with an aggregate net generating capacity of 1,801,200 KW:1,813 MW:

Plant NamePlant TypeTotal KW
Capacity
 Year Installed
Colstrip 1 & 2 (50% interest)Coal330,000  1975 & 1976
Colstrip 3 & 4 (25% interest)Coal370,000  1984 & 1986
Upper Baker RiverHydro91,000  1959
Lower Baker RiverHydro79,000  Reconstructed 1960
    Upgraded 2001
White River3Hydro70,000  1911
Snoqualmie FallsHydro44,400  1898 to 1911 and 1957
ElectronHydro26,000  1904 to 1929
Fredonia Units 1 & 2Dual-fuel combustion turbines210,000  1984
Fredrickson Units 2 & 3Dual-fuel combustion turbines150,000  1981
Whitehorn Units 2 & 3Dual-fuel combustion turbines150,000  1981
Fredonia Units 3 & 4Dual-fuel combustion turbines108,000  2001
EncogenNatural gas cogeneration170,000  1993
Crystal MountainInternal combustion2,800  1969


PLANT NAMEPLANT TYPE
NET
CAPACITY (MW)
YEAR INSTALLED
Colstrip Units 1 & 2 (50% interest)Coal307 1975 & 1976
Colstrip Units 3 & 4 (25% interest)Coal370 1984 & 1986
Fredonia Units 1 & 2Dual-fuel combustion turbines207 1984
Fredrickson Units 1 & 2Dual-fuel combustion turbines147 1981
Whitehorn Units 2 & 3Dual-fuel combustion turbines147 1981
Fredonia Units 3 & 4Dual-fuel combustion turbines107 2001
Frederickson Unit 1 (49.85% interest)Natural gas combined cycle124 2002; Purchased 2004
EncogenNatural gas cogeneration167 1993
Crystal MountainInternal combustion3 1969
Upper Baker RiverHydroelectric91 1959
Lower Baker RiverHydroelectric79 
Reconstructed 1960;
Upgraded 2001
Snoqualmie FallsHydroelectric42 1898 to 1911 and 1957
ElectronHydroelectric22 1904 to 1929

COLSTRIP GENERATING FACILITY
In June 2004, PSE and Western Energy Company (WECO), the supplier of coal to Colstrip Units 1 & 2, entered into a binding arbitration and settled a dispute concerning prices paid for coal supplied. The binding decision retroactively set a new baseline cost per ton of coal purchased by PSE for Colstrip Units 1 & 2 supplied from July 31, 2001, and is applicable for the remaining term of the coal supply agreement through December 2009. The decision resulted in a $6.9 million charge that was recorded in the second quarter 2004. Of the $6.9 million charge, $5.0 million was included in the PCA mechanism. PSE had previously accrued a $1.6 million reserve in the fourth quarter 2003 related to the arbitration.
On April 29, 2004, the Minerals Management Service of the United States Department of the Interior (MMS) issued an order to WECO to pay additional royalties concerning coal purchased by PSE for Colstrip Units 3 & 4. The order seeks payment of an additional $1.1 million in royalties for coal mined from federal land between 1997 and June 30, 2000. During that period, PSE’s coal price was reduced by a settlement agreement entered into in February 1997 among PSE, WECO and Montana Power received from other utilities is classified between hydro and other producersCompany that resolved disputes that were then pending. The order seeks to impute the price charged to PSE based on the characterother Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners’ contractual amounts. PSE is supporting WECO’s appeal of the utility system usedorder, but is also evaluating the basis of the claim. PSE accrued a loss reserve in the amount of $1.1 million in connection with this matter in the second quarter 2004.
In addition, the MMS issued two orders to supply the power or, if the power is supplied from a particular resource, the character ofWECO in 2002 and 2003 to pay additional royalties concerning coal sold to Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners. The orders assert that resource.
2 Short-term wholesale purchases net of resales of 5,170,564 MWh and 6,063,076 MWh for 2003 and 2002, respectively, account for 14.1% and 7.4% of energy purchases.
3 Effective January 15, 2004, the White River generating plant ceased operationsadditional royalties are owed as a result of WECO not paying royalties in connection with revenue received by WECO from the Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners under a coal transportation agreement during the period October 1, 1991 through December 31, 2001. PSE’s share of the alleged additional royalties is $1.8 million, which is equivalent to PSE’s 25% ownership interest in Colstrip Units 3 & 4. Other parties may attempt to assert claims against WECO if the MMS position prevails. The transportation agreement provides for the construction and operation of a conveyor system that runs several miles from the mine to Colstrip Units 3 & 4. WECO has appealed these orders and PSE rejectingis monitoring the FERC license.

process. PSE and PPL Montana,believes that the other ownerColstrip Units 3 & 4 owners have reasonable defenses in this matter based upon its review. Neither the outcome of this matter nor the associated costs can be predicted at this time.

In September 2004, the owners of Colstrip Units 1 & 2 are engaged(PSE and PPL Montana) entered into a tentative settlement agreement with certain homeowners in a dispute with Western Energy Company, a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company, the supplier of coal to the Colstrip power plants.town site area concerning a lawsuit filed in May 2003. In December 2004, the plaintiffs retained new counsel and postponed further settlement discussions until more discovery is completed. The dispute is in the binding arbitration process and concerns the price that PSE and PPL Montana will pay for coal under the contract forlawsuit alleged certain domestic water wells may have been contaminated by seepage from a Colstrip Units 1 & 2 througheffluent holding pond. The tentative settlement agreement would require extending municipal water to the endhomeowners and abandoning the existing wells. The total estimated cost of the contract in 2009. This arbitration is contemplated assettlement ranges from $1.4 million to $1.5 million. As a price adjustment mechanism in that contract. The present arbitration schedule would resolve the disputeresult of this tentative settlement agreement, PSE recorded a $0.7 million reserve in the secondthird quarter of 2004. Any price adjustment could be retroactive to July 30, 2001 and would apply through the rest of the term. Fuel supply costs for electric generation after July 1, 2002 are part of PSE’s PCA mechanism.
        On October 13, 2003, PSE received a letter from Western Energy Company that enclosed an Audit Issue Letter dated July 25, 2003 from the Montana Department of Revenue, pertaining to some allegedly underpaid royalties on coal purchased by PSE from Western Energy Company between February 1997 and June 2000. PSE used the coal as fuel2004 for its share50% ownership of the Colstrip Units 31 & 4 generating plant. PSE’s coal price for that period was reduced2 project. The settlement agreement would not resolve certain other claims by a settlement PSE and Western Energy Company had entered into in 1997. Western Energy Company takesresidents within the position that PSE must reimburse Western Energy Company for any additional charges that result from the Audit Issue Letter. The Audit Issue Letter seeks payment of over $1.1 million for royalties for the federal government. If that position is correct, it could raise issues of other royalties and taxes that might apply. PSE will investigate and defend this claim vigorously.city limits. PSE cannot predict the outcome or any potential financial impact of the claims by the residents within the city limits at this issue.

time.


FERC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS AND LICENSES
As part of its hydroelectric operations, PSE is required to obtain licenses from FERC. A typical license contains mandatory conditions of operation, such as flow rate requirements, adherence to certain ramping protocols for outages, maintenance of reservoir levels, equipment upgrade projects, and fish and wildlife mitigation projects. The licensing and relicensing processes involve harmonizing conflicting rights and obligations of numerous governmental, non-governmental and private parties, and dealing with issues that may include environmental compliance, fish protection and mitigation, water quality, Native American rights, private landowner rights, title claims, operational and capital improvements, and flood control. As a result, a number of political, compliance and financial risks can arise from the licensing and relicensing processes.
PSE owns fourthree hydroelectric projects: the Baker River Project,project, the Snoqualmie Falls Project,project and the Electron Project and theproject. The White River Project.project ceased operations as a hydroelectric generating resource in January 2004. The Baker River and Snoqualmie Falls Projectsprojects are operating under the jurisdiction of FERC. FERC regulates dam safety and administers proceedings under the FPA to license jurisdictional hydropower projects. FERC licenses are generally issued for a term of 30-5030 to 50 years.
Baker River project.The Baker River and Snoqualmie Falls Projects are currently in FERC relicensing proceedings. Relicensing proceedings involve multiple parties and interests, and frequently take several years to complete. Relicensing proceedings also invoke the jurisdiction of other federal and state agencies, and these agencies determine various matters that affect the terms and conditions of the FERC license. The Electron Project is not subject to FERC jurisdiction. The White River Project was shut down on January 15, 2004 as a result of PSE’s rejection of the FERC license that made the project uneconomical to operate.
Baker River Project. The Baker River Project consists of the Lower Baker Development (constructed in 1925) and the Upper Baker Development (constructed in 1959) and is located upstream of the confluence of the. The Baker and Skagit Rivers in Whatcom and Skagit Counties. The project has a current authorized capacity of 170.0 MW. The project was licensed for 50 years, effective May 1, 1956. TheRiver project’s current license expires on April 30, 2006, and PSE will issue its Notice of Intent to filesubmitted an application for a new license application into FERC on April 30, 2004. Consultation has been


initiated withOn November 30, 2004, PSE and 23 parties comprised of federal, state and local governmental organizations, Native American Indian tribes, environmental and other nongovernmental entities filed a proposed comprehensive settlement agreement on all issues relating to the National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7relicensing of the Endangered Species Act,Baker River project. The proposed settlement includes a set of proposed license articles and, consultation is ongoing with PSE acting as the non-federal representative during said consultation. PSE anticipates submittingif approved by FERC without material modification, would allow a new license applicationfor 45 years or more. The proposed settlement would require an investment of approximately $360 million (capital expenditures and operations and maintenance cost) in order to relicenseimplement the projectconditions of the new license over the next 30 years. The proposed settlement is subject to contingencies that have yet to be resolved and is subject to additional regulatory approvals yet to be attained from various agencies. FERC has not yet ruled on or beforethe proposed settlement and its ultimate outcome remains uncertain. Assuming that settlement contingencies are resolved and additional regulatory approvals are obtained in a timely manner and on favorable terms, a decision by FERC could occur by April 30, 2004.
2006.

Snoqualmie Falls Project.project.The Snoqualmie Falls Project,project, built in 1898, was the world’s first electric generating facility to be built totally underground. It is located 3.5 miles downstream of the confluence of the North, Middle and South Forks of the Snoqualmie River. The project has a current authorized capacity of 44.4 MW. Thehad its original license of the project was issued May 13, 1975, which was made effective retroactive to March 1, 1956, and terminatedexpired on December 31, 1993. PSE filed its application to relicense the project on November 25, 1991, and has been operatingoperated the project pursuant to annual licenses issued by FERC since the original license expired.
        All necessary federal and state review processes prerequisite to FERC’s issuance of On June 29, 2004, FERC granted PSE a new 40-year operating license were completed asfor the Snoqualmie Falls project. PSE estimates that the investment required to implement the conditions of October 2003. Thethe new license agreement will cost approximately $44 million. These conditions include modified operating procedures and various project upgrades that include better protection of fish, development of riparian habitat to promote fish propagation, increased minimum flows in the Snoqualmie River during low-water periods and the development of recreational amenities near the down-river power house. On July 29, 2004, the Snoqualmie Tribe and certain other parties filed an appeala request for rehearing of the Statenew license and a request to stay the FERC license. FERC has not ruled on this request and the outcome remains uncertain. In the meantime, because a stay has not been issued, the Company is proceeding with its plan of Washington, Department of Ecology’s water quality certification in November 2003, which appeal is presently pending beforerehabilitation necessary to comply with the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board. The matter is set for hearing on March 22, 2004. The outcome of this matter is not expected to have a material impact upon the financial condition, results of operations or liquidityterms of the Company.
new license.
Electron Project.project.The Electron Projectproject was built in 1904 in the upper reaches of the Puyallup River.1904. The project’s capacity is currently 26.022 MW. In 1977, the project was determined to be a “pre-1935” project under the FPA and therefore not subject to FERC jurisdiction. In this status, the project can continue to operate without a FERC license absent “post-1935” construction of a nature sufficient to invoke FERC’s jurisdiction. PSE does not anticipate undertaking any betterments or improvements to the project that would entail “post-1935” construction.
The project also operates in compliance with the terms and conditions of a “Resource Enhancement Agreement” with the Puyallup Indian Tribe. This agreement resolved the Tribe’s long-standing claims for resource and other damages allegedly associated with the construction and operation of the project. The agreement also provides that in 2018 PSE must decide to either retire the project by 2026 or, in lieu of retirement, undertake significant upgrades that would likely invoke FERC jurisdiction. The outcome of these deliberations is not expected to have a material impact upon the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.
White River Project.project.The White River Projectproject was built in 1911 and was operated as a hydropower facility until January 15, 2004. The project’s capacity was 70.0 MW. For many years, the project was believed to fall outside of the jurisdiction of the FPA. In the 1970s, FERC’s jurisdiction over the project was established. PSE submitted a license application to FERC in 1983. In1983, and in December 1997, FERC issued a proposed license for the project. PSE appealed the 1997 license because it contained terms and conditions that would render ongoing operations of the project uneconomic relative to alternative resources. In November 2003, PSE determined that it could no longer continue to economically operate the project due to additional conditions primarily related to two listings under the Endangered Species Act. On December 23, 2003, PSE notified FERC of its intent to rejectthat it rejected the 1997 license ceasefor the White River project and on January 15, 2004, generation of electricity and terminateceased at the FERC licensing proceeding.White River project. PSE is actively seeking to sell the project to one or more entities interested in maintaining the reservoir for commercial purposes.
        On
In the PCORC Order issued on April 7, 2004, the Washington Commission approved PSE’s recovery on the unamortized White River plant investment. At December 29, 2003,31, 2004, the White River project net book value totaled $65.1 million, which included $46.4 million of net utility plant, $14.8 million of capitalized FERC licensing costs, $3.1 million of costs related to construction work in progress, and $0.8 million related to dam operations and safety. PSE entered intosought recovery of the relicensing, other construction work in progress and dam operations and safety costs totaling $18.7 million in its general rate filing of April 2004, over a one-year10-year amortization period. In the third quarter 2004, the Washington Commission staff recommended that PSE be allowed recovery of the White River net utility plant costs noted above, but defer any amortization of the FERC licensing and other costs until all costs and any sales proceeds are known. In its February 18, 2005 general rate case order, the Washington Commission found this treatment reasonable, and adopted all of the staff recommendations.
In January 2001, certain environmental groups gave notice of their intent to sue for alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act, but no such lawsuit has been filed. In May 2004, the Puyallup Indian Tribe gave PSE notice of intent to sue for an alleged violation of water quality laws associated with the release of water from the White River project reservoir. No such lawsuit has been filed and PSE is in discussion with the Puyallup Indian Tribe regarding their concerns. Additionally, PSE has sought, and is awaiting, further direction from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) as to whether any additional actions are necessary to maintain compliance with applicable water quality laws.
Homeowners and others interested in preserving the project reservoir (Lake Tapps) have expressed concern over the possible loss of the reservoir and there has been a solicitation of interest in a potential lawsuit against PSE to preserve the reservoir, but no such lawsuit has been filed to date.
In September 2004, the Company renewed its contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to maintain operation of the White River diversion dam to support the COE’s ongoing operation of its Mud Mountain Dam fish passage facilities. The agreement provides for reimbursement of a portion of PSE’s operating costs and directs PSE to operate the diversion dam in accordance with measures determined by federal agencies to be necessary to protect listed species and habitat. Homeowners and others interestedThis contract expires in preservingSeptember 2005, although the COE has expressed its desire to extend the term for a period of time necessary to allow the COE to develop a plan to acquire the diversion dam from the Company.
In June 2003, Ecology approved an application for new municipal water rights related to the White River project reservoir (Lake Tapps) have expressed concern overreservoir. This approval was sought in connection with PSE’s ongoing efforts to sell the possible lossWhite River project to be used for commercial purposes. An appeal of Ecology’s decision approving the reservoir and there has been a solicitation of interest in a potential lawsuit against PSE to preserve the reservoir, but no such lawsuit has been filed. In January 2001, certain environmental groups gave notice of their intent to sue for alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act, but no such lawsuit has been filed.
        On December 10, 2003, PSEnew municipal water rights was subsequently filed a petition with the Washington CommissionState Pollution Control Hearings Board. In July 2004, this decision was remanded back to Ecology for an Accounting Order which will allowfurther analysis of non-hydropower operations. The Company has been advised by Ecology that Ecology anticipates issuing a revised decision by the end of 2005; however, no firm date has been set for rate recoveryany such revised decision. Any proceeds from the sale of the unrecovered investment inWhite River water rights will reduce the project. The resolutionbalance of the deferred regulatory asset. Neither the outcome of this matter willnor any potential associated costs can be decided in the power cost only rate case, which is expected by mid-April 2004. The Washington Commission staff’s testimony in PSE’s pending power cost only rate case proceeding supports PSE’s petition. At December 31, 2003, the White River Project net book value totaled $68.4 million, which included $47.9 million of net utility plant, $15.2 million of capitalized FERC licensing costs and $5.3 million of costs related to construction work in progress. The FERC licensing costs and construction work in progress charges were deferred to a regulatory asset. To meet the demands of PSE’s retail customers, electric generation after January 15, 2004 will be purchased from the wholesale energy market.

NEW GENERATION RESOURCES
        In October 2003, PSE completed negotiations to purchase a 49.85% interest in a 275 MW (250 MW capacity with 25 MW planned capital improvements) gas-fired electric generating facility located within Western Washington. The purchase will add approximately 137 MW of electric generation capacity to serve PSE’s retail customers. PSE submitted a power cost only rate case in October 2003 to the Washington Commission to recover the approximately $80 million cost of the new generating facility and other power costs. The power cost only rate case is expected to last approximately five months, with an order anticipated to be issued in mid-April 2004. Accordingly, the acquisition of the plant, subject to favorable approval by the Washington Commission, could be completed by April 2004. In addition, the acquisition will require approval from FERC under the FPA. PSE filed its application in January 2004 with FERC and anticipates approval in early 2004.
        In addition, PSE has issued an RFP to acquire approximately 50 average MW of energy from wind power for its electric-resource portfolio and is currently evaluating responses topredicted at this request. PSE issued an RFP in February 2004 for an additional 305 MW of electric power resource generation with proposals due back in March 2004.

time.


COLUMBIA RIVER ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACTS
During 2003,2004, approximately 19.9%23.1% of PSE’s energy output was obtained at an average cost of approximately $0.0164$0.0146 per kWh through long-term contracts with several of the Washington PUDs that own and operate hydroelectric projects on the Columbia River.
PSE’s purchases of power from the Columbia River projects are on a “cost of service” basis under which PSE pays a proportionate share of the annual debt service and operating and maintenance costs of each project in proportion to the contractual shares that PSE has rights to from such project. Such payments are not contingent upon the projects being operable, which means PSE is required to make the payments


even if power is not being delivered. These projects are financed through substantially level debt service payments, and their annual costs may vary over the term of the contracts as additional financing is required to meet the costs of major repairs, or replacements, or license requirements, or changes to annual operating and maintenance expenses are required.

PSE has contracted to purchase from Chelan County PUD (Chelan) a 50% share of the output of the original units of the Rock Island Project,project, which percentage will remain unchanged for the duration of the contract thatwhich expires in 2012. PSE has also contracted to purchase the output of the additional Rock Island units for the duration of the contract. As of December 31, 2003,2004, PSE’s aggregate capacity from all units of the Rock Island Projectproject was 413,900 KW.413.9 MW. PSE’s share of output of the additional Rock Island units may be reduced by up to 10% per year. On July 1, 2000, Chelan began withdrawing 5% of the power from the additional Rock Island units for use in meeting its local load on July 1, 2000.load. The maximum withdrawal that Chelan may make from the additional units is 50%. The schedule of withdrawals by Chelan for the additional Rock Island units is as follows:

Date of WithdrawalWithdrawal PercentagePSE Capacity after Withdrawal
July 1, 200310%75%
February 1, 200510%65%
July 1, 200510%55%
November 1, 20065%50%


DATE OF WITHDRAWAL            
WITHDRAWAL PERCENTAGE
PSE % OF CAPACITY AFTER
WITHDRAWAL
February 1, 200510%65%
July 1, 200510%55%
November 1, 20065%50%

PSE has contracted to purchase from Chelan 38.9% (505,000 KW(505 MW of peak capacity as of December 31, 2003)2004) of the annual output of the Rocky Reach Project,project, which percentage remains unchanged for the remainder of the contract which expires in 2011.
PSE has contracted to purchase from Douglas County PUD 31.3% (261,000 KW(261 MW as of December 31, 2003)2004) of the annual output of the Wells Project,project, the percentage of which remains unchanged for the remainder of the contract which expires in 2018.
Early in 2003, the Colville Confederated Tribes (Colville Tribe) presented a claim to Douglas County PUD based upon allegedly unpaid past annual charges for the Wells Hydroelectric Projectproject for the use of Colville tribalTribal lands. The Colville Tribe also claimed that annual charges would also be due for periods into the future. Since April 2003,On November 1, 2004, Douglas County PUD andentered into a settlement with the Colville Tribe representatives have discussedconcerning claims that the Colville Tribe had asserted against Douglas County PUD for the use by the Wells project of Tribal lands. PSE approved the settlement of this issue.and participated in the filing Douglas County PUD made on November 23, 2004 seeking FERC approval. The settlement discussions may leadwas approved in a FERC order on February 11, 2005. It is unlikely that any party will seek a rehearing of that FERC order, of which the deadline for doing so is March 13, 2005. When the settlement becomes final, the effects on PSE will be through modestly increased power costs, and a reduction in the amount of power delivered to a resolutionPSE due to the allocation to the Colville Tribe. The Colville Tribe’s allocation will be treated as an encroachment to the project, thus reducing the amount of the claim. A settlement of this claim could affect the quantity or the price of the output of the Wells Project purchasedpower available for purchase by PSE. others.
PSE has contracted to purchase from Grant County PUD 8.0% (72,000 KW(72 MW as of December 31, 2003)2004) of the annual output of the Priest Rapids Development and 10.8% (98,000 KW(98 MW of peak capacity as of December 31, 2003)2004) of the annual output of the Wanapum Development, which percentages remain unchanged for the remainder of the original contract terms which expire in 2005 and 2009, respectively. On December 28, 2001, PSE signed a contract offer for new contracts for the Priest Rapids and Wanapum Developments. On April 12, 2002, PSE signed amendments to those agreements which are technical clarifications of certain sections of the agreements. Under the terms of these contracts, PSE will continue to obtain capacity and energy for the term of any new FERC license to be obtained by Grant County PUD. Grant County PUD filed an “Applicationapplication for New Licensenew license for the Priest Rapids Project”project on October 29, 2003. The new contracts'contracts’ terms begin in November 2005 for the Priest Rapids Development and in November 2009 for the Wanapum Development. Unlike the current contracts, in the new contracts, PSE’s share of power from the developments declines over time as Grant County PUD’s load increases.
On March 8, 2002, the Yakama Nation filed a complaint with FERC which alleged that Grant County PUD’s new contracts unreasonably restrain trade and violate various sections of the FPA and Public Law 83-544. On November 21, 2002, FERC dismissed the complaint while agreeing that certain aspects of the complaint had merit. As a result, FERC has ordered Grant County PUD to remove specific sections of the contract which constrain the parties to the Grant County PUD contracts from competing with Grant County PUD for a new license. A rehearing was requested but was denied by FERC on April 16, 2003. Both the Yakama Nation and Grant County PUD have appealed the FERC decision and the appeals have been consolidated in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER UTILITIES
PSE has entered into long-term firm purchased power contracts with other utilities in the West region. PSE is generally not obligated to make payments under these contracts unless power is delivered.
Under a 1985 settlement agreement with BPA relating to Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 3 (WNP-3), in which PSE had a 5%5 percent interest, PSE is entitled to receive electric powerexchange energy from BPA beginning January 1, 1987, during the months of November through April. Under the contract,The power PSE is guaranteedreceives, which amounts to receive not less than 191,667 MWh in each47 average MW of energy and 82 MW of capacity for contract year until PSE has received total deliveries of 5,833,333 MWh. PSE expects the contract to be in effect until at least June 2008. Also pursuant2004-2005, is tied to the 1985 settlement agreement,equivalent annual availability factor of several surrogate nuclear plants similar in design to WNP-3. BPA has an option to request that PSE deliver up to 5663 MW of exchange energy to BPA in all months except May, July and August for contract year 2003 — 2004.
        On October 31, 2003, a 15-year2004 - 2005. The contract forterminates June 30, 2017, but may be ended earlier if the purchasenumber of firm power and energy between PacifiCorp and PSE expired under the termssurrogate operating years of the agreement. The contract provided for 120 average MW of energy and 200 MW of peak capacity annually.
longest running surrogate unit is less than 30 years.
On October 1, 1989, PSE signed a contract with The Montana Power Company, which subsequently sold its utility assets to NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern) in 2002. Under the contract, NorthWestern provides PSE 71 average MW of energy (97 MW of peak capacity) over a 21-year period. This contract expires in December 2010. On September 14, 2003,November 1, 2004 NorthWestern filed a voluntary petition for reliefemerged from bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. PSE has several long-term contracts with NorthWestern under which PSE jointly owns facilities or purchases power or transmission services from NorthWestern. PSE and NorthWestern entered into a settlement of one outstanding dispute concerning transmission losses associated with power deliveries to PSE under the 21-year power purchase agreement PSE has with NorthWestern. That settlement was approved byDuring the bankruptcy court on December 11, 2003. PSE does not expect the filingproceeding NorthWestern affirmed its continued performance under all of NorthWestern’s petition to have a material impact upon the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.
these agreements.
In January 1992, PSE executed an exchange agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) which became effective on January 1, 1992.. Under the agreement, 300 MW of capacity together with up to 413,000 MWh of energy are exchanged seasonally each year. No payments are made under this agreement. PG&E is a summer peaking utility and provides power during the months of November through February. PSE is a


winter peaking utility and provides power during the months of June through September. Each party may terminate the contract upon notifying the other party at least five years in advance. On December 20, 2001,

In February 1996, a 10-year power exchange agreement between PSE notified PG&Eand Powerex (a subsidiary of its intenta British Columbia, Canada utility) became effective. Under this agreement, Powerex pays PSE for the right to terminatedeliver up to 1,200,000 MWh annually to PSE at the Canadian border in exchange for PSE delivering power to Powerex at various locations in the United States. The agreement as ofalso allows Powerex to make up any exchange volumes not used up to two years after the end of 2006. In May 2002, PG&E responded and stated its view that PSE’s notice was void due to PG&E’s bankruptcy. PSE has not responded to the PG&E letter.

annual period.


ELECTRIC ENERGY SUPPLY CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS WITH NON-UTILITY GENERATORS
As required by the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PSE has entered into long-term firm purchased power contracts with non-utility generators. The most significant of these are the contracts described below which PSE entered into in 1989, 1990, and 1991 with operators of natural gas-fired cogeneration projects. PSE purchases the net electrical output of these three projects at fixed and annually escalating prices, which were intended to approximate PSE’s avoided cost of new generation projected at the time these agreements were made.
On February 24, 1989, PSE executed a 20-year contract to purchase 108 average MW of energy and 123 MW of capacity, beginning in April 1993, from Sumas Cogeneration Company, L.P.,LP, which owns and operates a natural gas-fired cogeneration project located in Sumas, Washington.
On June 29, 1989, PSE executed a 20-year contract to purchase 70 average MW of energy and 80 MW of capacity, beginning October 11, 1991, from the March Point Cogeneration Company (March Point), which owns and operates a natural gas-fired cogeneration facility known as March Point Phase I located at the Equilon refinery in Anacortes, Washington. On December 27, 1990, PSE executed a second contract (having a term coextensive with the first contract) to purchase an additional 53 average MW of energy and 60 MW of capacity, beginning in January 1993, from another natural gas-fired cogeneration facility owned and operated by March Point, which facility is known as March Point Phase II and is located at the Equilon refinery in Anacortes, Washington.
On March 20, 1991, PSE executed a 20-year contract to purchase 216 average MW of energy and 245 MW of capacity, beginning in April 1994, from Tenaska Washington Partners, L.P.,LP, which owns and operates a natural gas-fired cogeneration project located near Ferndale, Washington. In December 1997 and January 1998, PSE and Tenaska Washington Partners entered into revised agreements in which PSE became the principal natural gas supplier to the project and power purchase prices under the Tenaska contract were revised to reflect market-based prices for the natural gas supply. PSE obtained an order from the Washington Commission creating a regulatory asset related to the $215 million restructuring payment. Under terms of the order, PSE was allowed to accrue as an additional regulatory asset one-half the carrying costs of the deferred balance over the first five years, which ended December 2002. The balance of the regulatory asset at December 31, 20032004 was $216.7$202.0 million, which will be recovered in electric rates through 2011. In the power cost only rate case, the Washington Commission staff has identified a portion of this asset as a possible disallowance for the future rate recovery. The power cost only rate case order from the Washington Commission is expected in mid-April 2004.
In December 1999, PSE bought out the remaining 8.5 years of one of the natural gas supply contracts serving Encogen from Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Cabot) which provided approximately 60% of the plant’s natural gas requirements. PSE became the replacement gas supplier to the project for 60% of the supply under the terms of the Cabot agreement. The balance of the regulatory asset at December 31, 2003 is $11.02004 was $9.3 million, which will be recovered in electric rates through 2008. In the power cost only rate case, the Washington Commission staff has identified a portion of this asset as a possible disallowance for future rate recovery. The power cost only rate case order from the Washington Commission is expected in mid-April 2004.


ELECTRICELELCTRIC TRANSMISSION CONTRACTS WITH OTHER UTILITIES
PSE has entered into numerous transmission contracts with BPA to integrate electric generation resources and energy contracts into the PSE system.system to serve native load. These transmission contracts specify that PSE will pay for transmission service based on the contracted megawatt level of transmission service,demand, regardless of actual use.
Other agreements, notably the Westside Northern Intertie Agreement and the AC Intertie Capacity Ownership Agreement provide capacity ownership type rights to PSE. PSE’s annual charges are also based on contracted megawatt amounts. Capacity on these agreements that are not committed for native load or other uses are available for sale to third parties on PSE’s Open Access Same Time Information System (OASIS). PSE purchases short term transmission services from a variety of providers, including BPA.
The general transmission agreementagreements with BPA provides forprovide, among other things, the integration of PSE’s energy resources including PSE’s share of the Mid-Columbia hydroelectric projects, the Colstrip Projectproject and the PG&E exchange. The hourlyagreements have various terms ranging from specified dates in the 1 to 14 year time frame to life-of-facilities, the latter being in effect as long as the transmission facilities themselves are fully functional. Collectively, the agreements have an aggregate demand limit is 1,161in excess of 2,200 MW. This
In April 2004, PSE entered into a two-year contract is effective through July 31, 2014.
        PSE has an additional six transmission agreements with BPA to integrate the output of PSE’s recently acquired share of the Mid-Columbia hydro projects.Frederickson 1 plant. The hourly demand limit of all six contracts totals 1,136this contract is 150 MW. The contracts have remaining terms from 2 to 15 years.
PSE’s transmission expenses for integrating its firm resources was $35.1$34.7 million in 2003.2004. The transmission rates used by BPA for these contracts are effective through September 30, 2005. BPA rates change from time to time based upon BPA’s rate cases.
        In October 1997,
On December 6, 2004, BPA offered a 10-year power exchangeproposed transmission rate case settlement agreement between PSE and Powerex (a subsidiary of a British Columbia utility) became effective.to BPA’s transmission customers. Under this agreement, Powerex pays PSE for the right to deliver up to 1,200,000 MWh annually to PSE at the Canadian border in exchange for PSE delivering power to Powerex at various locations in the United States. The agreement also allows Powerex to make up any exchange volumes not used up to two years after the endterms of the annual period.settlement agreement, the BPA IR Rate, the rate at which PSE receives the vast majority of its transmission service from BPA, will increase 17.6%. On January 6, 2005, BPA reached settlement with all its customers. BPA must file the settlement agreement with FERC and wait for FERC’s approval before rates can go into effect. It is anticipated that rates will go into effect October 1, 2005.




GAS OPERATING STATISTICS

TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31200320022001

  Gas operating revenues by classes (thousands):        
    Residential $   401,717 $   428,569 $   486,761 
    Commercial firm 149,671 167,434 196,904 
    Industrial firm 24,164 28,312 37,411 
    Interruptible 34,046 48,889 71,997 

      Total retail gas sales 609,598 673,204 793,073 
    Transportation services 13,796 12,851 11,780 
    Other 10,836 11,100 10,218 

      Total gas operating revenues $   634,230 $   697,155 $   815,071 

  Number of customers served (average): 
    Residential 583,439 565,003 548,497 
    Commercial firm 46,813 45,916 45,998 
    Industrial firm 2,685 2,727 2,789 
    Interruptible 611 650 833 
    Transportation 134 122 112 

      Total customers 633,682 614,418 598,229 

  Gas volumes, therms (thousands): 
    Residential 500,116 500,672 494,648 
    Commercial firm 216,951 218,716 214,713 
    Industrial firm 36,890 39,142 42,287 
    Interruptible 61,739 81,045 98,733 

      Total retail gas volumes, therms 815,696 839,575 850,381 
    Transportation volumes 209,497 207,852 188,196 

      Total volumes 1,025,193 1,047,427 1,038,577 

  Working gas volumes in storage at year end, therms (thousands): 
    Jackson Prairie 60,365 64,583 59,537 
    Clay Basin 49,314 51,225 73,800 

  Average therms used per customer: 
    Residential 857 886 902 
    Commercial firm 4,634 4,763 4,668 
    Industrial firm 13,739 14,354 15,162 
    Interruptible 101,046 124,685 118,527 
    Transportation 1,563,410 1,703,705 1,680,321 

  Average revenue per customer: 
    Residential $          689 $          759 $          887 
    Commercial firm 3,197 3,647 4,281 
    Industrial firm 9,000 10,382 13,414 
    Interruptible 55,722 75,214 86,431 
    Transportation 102,955 105,336 105,179 

  Average revenue per therm sold: 
    Residential$      0.803$      0.855$      0.984   
    Commercial firm 0.6900.7660.917
    Industrial firm 0.6550.7230.885
    Interruptible 0.5510.6030.729
      Average retail revenue per therm sold 0.7470.8020.933
    Transportation 0.0660.0620.063


TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
2004
 
2003
 
2002
 
Gas operating revenues by classes (thousands):       
Residential $478,969 $401,717 $428,569 
Commercial firm  187,262  149,671  167,434 
Industrial firm  30,472  24,164  28,312 
Interruptible  46,900  34,046  48,889 
Total retail gas sales  743,603  609,598  673,204 
Transportation services  12,968  13,796  12,851 
Other  12,735  10,836  11,100 
Total gas operating revenues $769,306 $634,230 $697,155 
Number of customers served (average):          
Residential  605,505  583,439  565,003 
Commercial firm  48,457  46,813  45,916 
Industrial firm  2,678  2,685  2,727 
Interruptible  576  611  650 
Transportation  129  134  122 
Total customers  657,345  633,682  614,418 
Gas volumes, therms (thousands):          
Residential  489,036  500,116  500,672 
Commercial firm  217,346  216,951  218,716 
Industrial firm  36,751  36,890  39,142 
Interruptible  65,425  61,739  81,045 
Total retail gas volumes, therms  808,558  815,696  839,575 
Transportation volumes  201,642  209,497  207,852 
Total volumes  1,010,200  1,025,193  1,047,427 
Working gas volumes in storage at year end, therms (thousands):      
Jackson Prairie  70,986  60,365  64,583 
Clay Basin  55,044  49,314  51,225 
Average therms used per customer:          
Residential  808  857  886 
Commercial firm  4,485  4,634  4,763 
Industrial firm  13,723  13,739  14,354 
Interruptible  113,585  101,046  124,685 
Transportation  1,563,116  1,563,410  1,703,705 
Average revenue per customer:          
Residential $791 $689 $759 
Commercial firm  3,864  3,197  3,647 
Industrial firm  11,379  9,000  10,382 
Interruptible  81,424  55,722  75,214 
Transportation  100,527  102,955  105,336 
Average revenue per therm sold:          
Residential $0.979 $0.803 $0.855 
Commercial firm  0.862  0.690  0.766 
Industrial firm  0.829  0.655  0.723 
Interruptible  0.717  0.551  0.603 
Average retail revenue per therm sold  0.920  0.747  0.802 
Transportation  0.064  0.066  0.062 


PSE currently purchases a blended portfolio of gas supplies ranging from long-term firm to daily gas supplies from a diverse group of major and independent natural gas producers and gas marketers in the United States and Canada. PSE also enters into short-term physical and financial fixed price derivative instruments to hedge the cost of gas to serve its customers. All of PSE’s gas supply is ultimately transported through the facilities of Williams Northwest Pipeline Corporation (NWP), the sole interstate pipeline delivering directly into the Westernwestern Washington area. Delivery of gas supply to PSE’s gas system is therefore dependent upon the operations of NWP.

 20032002
  Peak Firm Gas Supply at December 31 Dth per % Dth per % 

  Purchased gas supply: 
     British Columbia 167,200 20.8%145,500 18.2%
     Alberta 76,700 9.6%64,900 8.1%
     United States 98,400 12.3%113,800 14.2%

  Total purchased gas supply 342,300 42.7%324,200 40.5%

  Purchased storage capacity: 
     Clay Basin 54,900 6.8%63,000 7.9%
     Jackson Prairie 54,200 6.8%47,600 5.9%
     LNG 69,400 8.6%70,800 8.8%

  Total purchased storage capacity 178,500 22.2%181,400 22.6%

  Owned storage capacity: 
     Jackson Prairie 251,600 31.4%265,000 33.1%
     Propane-air injection 30,000 3.7%30,000 3.8%

  Total owned storage capacity 281,600 35.1%295,000 36.9%

  Total peak firm gas supply 802,400 100.0%800,600 100.0%

All peak firm gas supplies and storage are connected to PSE’s market with firm transportation capacity.


  2004 2003 
PEAK FIRM GAS SUPPLY AT DECEMBER 31  Dth per Day    Dth per Day   
Purchased gas supply:             
British Columbia  198,000  22.7% 171,000  20.0%
Alberta  50,000  5.7% 78,000  9.2%
United States  145,000  16.6% 100,000  11.7%
Total purchased gas supply  393,000  45.0% 349,000  40.9%
Purchased storage capacity:             
Clay Basin  48,000  5.5% 55,800  6.5%
Jackson Prairie  55,100  6.3% 55,100  6.4%
LNG  70,500  8.1% 70,500  8.2%
Total purchased storage capacity  173,600  19.9% 181,400  21.1%
Owned storage capacity:             
Jackson Prairie  294,700  33.7% 294,700  34.4%
Propane-air and other  12,500  1.4% 30,500  3.6%
Total owned storage capacity  307,200  35.1% 325,200  38.0%
Total peak firm gas supply  873,800  100.0% 855,600  100.0%
Other and commitments with third parties  (53,100)    (53,200)   
Total net peak firm gas supply  820,700     802,400    
    All peak firm gas supplies and storage are connected to PSE’s market with firm transportation capacity.

For baseload and peak-shaving purposes, PSE supplements its firm gas supply portfolio by purchasing natural gas, injecting it into underground storage facilities and withdrawing it during the peak winter heating season. Storage facilities at Jackson Prairie in Westernwestern Washington and at Clay Basin in Utah are used for this purpose. Jackson Prairie is also used for daily balancing of load requirements on PSE’s gas system. PSE has been in the process of expanding the storage capacity at Jackson Prairie since March 2003, and plans to continue doing so through 2008. At the end of this project, PSE will have added approximately 2,000,000 Dekatherms (one Dekatherm, or Dth, is equal to one million British thermal units or MMBtu) of additional working storage capacity. Peaking needs are also met by using PSE-owned gas held in NWP’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility at Plymouth, Washington, by producing propane-air gas at a plant owned by PSE and located on its distribution system, and by interrupting service to customers on interruptible service rates.
        In 1998, PSE took assignment from a third party of a peaking gas supply service contract whereby PSE can divert up to 48,000 Dth per day of gas it supplies to Tenaska away from the Tenaska Cogeneration Facility and toward its core gas load by causing Tenaska to operate its facility on distillate fuel and paying the replacement costs of the distillate fuel for such operations.
PSE expects to meet its firm peak-day requirements for residential, commercial and industrial markets through its firm gas purchase contracts, firm transportation capacity, firm storage capacity and other firm peaking resources. PSE believes it will be able to acquire incremental firm gas supply to meet anticipated growth in the requirements of its firm customers for the foreseeable future.

GAS SUPPLY PORTFOLIO
For the 2003-20042004-2005 winter heating season, PSE contracted for approximately 20.8%22.7% of its expected peak-day gas supply requirements from sources originating in British Columbia, Canada under a combination of long-term, medium-term and seasonal purchase agreements. Long-term gas supplies from Alberta represent approximately 9.6%5.7% of the peak-day requirements. Long-term and winter peaking arrangements with U.S. suppliers and gas stored at Clay Basin make up approximately 19.1%16.6% of the peak-day portfolio. The balance of the peak-day requirements is expected to be met with gas stored at Jackson Prairie, gas stored at Clay Basin, LNG held at NWP’s Plymouth facility and propane-air and other resources, which represent approximately 38.2%40.0%, 8.6%5.5%, 8.1% and 3.7%1.4%, respectively, of expected peak-day requirements. PSE also has the ability to curtail service to wholesale-levelindustrial and commercial customers on interruptible service rates during a peak-day event.
During 2003,2004, approximately 35%32% of gas supplies purchased by PSE originated in British Columbia while 22%20% originated in Alberta and 43%48% originated in the United States. The current firm, long-term gas supply portfolio consists of arrangements with 2212 producers and gas marketers, with no single supplier representing more than 12%4% of expected peak-day requirements. Contracts have remaining terms ranging from less than one year to eightten years.
PSE’s firm gas supply portfolio is structured to capitalize onhas flexibility in its transportation arrangements so that some savings can be achieved when there are regional price differentials when they arise due to the nature of its


transportation arrangements. Gas and services are marketed outside PSE’s service territory (off-system sales) whenever on-system customer demand requirements permit.between gas supply basins. The geographic mix of suppliers and daily, monthly and annual take requirements permit some degree of flexibility in managing gas supplies during off-peak periods to minimize costs.

GAS TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY
        PSE currently holds firm transportation capacity on pipelines owned by NWP, Gas Transmission Northwest and Duke Energy Gas Transmission. Accordingly, PSE pays fixed monthly demand charges for the right, but not the obligation, to transport specified quantities of gas from receipt points to delivery points on such pipelines each day for the term or terms of the applicable agreements.
        PSE and WNG CAP I, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PSE, hold firm year-round capacity on NWP through various contracts. PSE and WNG CAP I participate in the secondary pipeline capacity market to achieve savings for PSE’s customers. As a result, PSE and WNG CAP I hold approximately 465,000 Dth per day of capacity due to capacity release and segmentation transactions on NWP which provides firm delivery tois marketed outside PSE’s service territory. In addition, PSE holds approximately 413,000 Dth per day of seasonal firm capacity on NWP to provide for delivery of stored gas during the heating season. PSE has exchanged certain segments of its firm capacity with third parties to effectively lower transportation costs. PSE’s firm transportation capacity contracts with NWP have remaining terms ranging from less than 1 year to 13 years. However, PSE has either the unilateral right to extend the contracts under their current terms or the right of first refusal to extend such contracts under current FERC orders. PSE’s firm transportation capacity on Gas Transmission Northwest’s pipeline, totaling approximately 90,000 Dth per day, has a remaining term of 20 years. PSE’s firm transportation capacity on Duke Energy Gas Transmission’s pipeline, totaling approximately 40,000 Dth per day, has a remaining term of 11 years for approximately 25,000 Dth per day and has a remaining term of 16 years for approximately 15,000 Dth per day.
        During 2003, NWP took one of its two parallel pipelines that serve Western Washington out of service as a result of a second failure of the affected pipeline. Together, these two pipelines had the ability to flow approximately 1,300,000 Dth per day of gas from British Columbia. The loss of the affected pipeline reduced this ability to approximately 950,000 Dth per day. Prior to the second failure, the affected line had been operating at 80% of its maximum allowable operating pressure. If the affected pipeline is not returned to service, the loss could potentially decrease PSE’s overall NWP capacity by 12%. NWP is exploring options to meet firm contract obligations to PSE, which may include new pipeline construction or purchase of firm capacity from customers of NWP who have excess capacity. PSE does not expect the line to remain out of service indefinitely, and this event, to date, has not adversely impacted PSE’s ability to serve its customers. PSE expects to continue meeting itsterritory (off-system sales) whenever on-system customer needs throughout the pipeline repair or remediation period.demand requirements permit.


GAS STORAGE CAPACITY
PSE holds storage capacity in the Jackson Prairie and Clay Basin underground gas storage facilities adjacent to NWP’s pipeline. These facilities represent 45.5% of the expected peak-day portfolio. The Jackson Prairie facility, operated and one-third owned by PSE, is used primarily for intermediate peaking purposes since it is able to deliver a large volume of gas over a relatively short time period. Combined with capacity contracted from NWP’s one-third stake in Jackson Prairie, PSE has peak firm delivery capacity of over 349,000 Dth per day and total firm storage capacity exceeding 7,900,0008,100,000 Dth at the facility. The location of the Jackson Prairie facility in PSE’s market area ensuresincreases supply reliability and provides significant pipeline demand cost savings by reducing the amount of annual pipeline capacity required to meet peak-day gas requirements. The Clay Basin storage facility is a supply area storage facility that is used primarily to reduce portfolio costs through injections and withdrawals that take advantage of market price volatility and is also used for system reliability. After the release of capacity in 2004, PSE retainsretained maximum firm withdrawal capacity of over 55,00060,000 Dth per day from the Clay Basin facility with total storage capacity of almost 6,700,0007,419,000 Dth. The Clay Basin capacity is held under two long-term contracts with remaining terms of 108 and 1615 years. The capacity release contracts PSE has with multiple parties at the Clay Basin storage facility have remaining terms of three months.months as of December 31, 2004, with automatic renewal for 12-month terms. PSE’s maximum firm withdrawal capacity and total storage capacity at Clay Basin is over 110,000 Dth per day and exceeds 13,000,000 Dth, respectively, when PSE has not released any of the capacity.



LNG AND PROPANE-AIR RESOURCES
LNG and propane-air resources provide gas supply on short notice for short periods of time. Due to their typically high cost, these resources are normally utilized as the supply of last resort in extreme peak-demand periods, typically lasting a few hours or days. PSE has a long-term contract for storage of 241,700 Dth of PSE-owned gas as LNG at NWP’s Plymouth facility, which equates to approximately three and one-half days’days supply at a maximum daily deliverability of 70,500 Dth. PSE owns storage capacity for approximately 1.5 million gallons of propane. The propane-air injection facilities are capable of delivering the equivalent of 30,00010,000 Dth of gas per day for up to fourtwelve days directly into PSE’s distribution system.

In 2004, a 6,000 Dth capacity LNG storage facility was completed in Gig Harbor. The purpose of the facility is to provide a supplemental supply of natural gas during periods of high demand, improve overall system reliability and eliminate the need for portable LNG operations in the Gig Harbor area. Included in the facility are a transport trailer, storage tank, transfer station and send out skid.

GAS TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY
PSE currently holds firm transportation capacity on pipelines owned by NWP, Gas Transmission Northwest, TransCanada Pipelines, Ltd. (TransCanada), and Duke Energy Gas Transmission (Westcoast). Accordingly, PSE pays fixed monthly demand charges for the right, but not the obligation, to transport specified quantities of gas from receipt points to delivery points on such pipelines each day for the term or terms of the applicable agreements.
PSE and WNG CAP I, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PSE, hold firm year-round capacity on NWP through various contracts. PSE and WNG CAP I participate in the secondary pipeline capacity market to achieve savings for PSE’s customers. As a result, PSE and WNG CAP I hold approximately 465,000 Dth per day of capacity due to capacity release and segmentation transactions on NWP that provides firm delivery to PSE’s service territory. In addition, PSE holds approximately 413,000 Dth per day of seasonal firm capacity on NWP to provide for delivery of stored gas during the heating season. PSE has firm transportation capacity on NWP that supplies the Frederickson 1 generating facility of approximately 22,000 Dth per day, with a remaining term of 14 years. PSE has released certain segments of its firm capacity with third parties to effectively lower transportation costs. PSE’s firm transportation capacity contracts with NWP have remaining terms ranging from less than 1 year to 12 years. However, PSE has either the unilateral right to extend the contracts under their current terms or the right of first refusal to extend such contracts under current FERC orders. PSE’s firm transportation capacity on Gas Transmission Northwest’s pipeline, totaling approximately 90,000 Dth per day, has a remaining term of 19 years.
PSE’s firm transportation capacity on Westcoast’s pipeline, totaling approximately 40,000 Dth per day, has a remaining term of 10 years for approximately 25,000 Dth per day and a remaining term of 14 years for approximately 15,000 Dth per day. PSE has other firm transportation capacity on Westcoast’s pipeline, which supplies the Frederickson 1 generating facility, totaling approximately 22,000 Dth per day, with a remaining term of 10 years. PSE’s firm capacity on TransCanada’s Alberta and British Columbia transportation systems, totaling approximately 80,000 Dth per day, phases in year to year renewal rights beginning in 2006. In addition, PSE has firm transportation capacity on TransCanada’s pipelines commencing in 2008 with a term of 15 years, totaling approximately 8,000 Dth per day.
During 2003, NWP took one of its two parallel pipelines serving western Washington from British Columbia out of service as a result of a second failure of the affected pipeline. Together, these two pipelines had the ability to flow approximately 1,300,000 Dth per day of gas from British Columbia. The loss of the affected pipeline reduced this ability to approximately 950,000 Dth per day. Subsequent to testing and remediation efforts, portions of the affected line were returned to service in 2004, increasing the ability to flow gas from British Columbia to approximately 1,100,000 Dth per day. If the affected pipeline is not completely returned to service, the loss could potentially decrease PSE’s overall NWP capacity by 5%. In December 2004, NWP filed a request for authorization from FERC to replace all of the lost capacity through construction of new facilities. NWP expects to complete such Capacity Replacement project by the end of 2006. The cost of the Capacity Replacement project is expected to increase the cost for services that PSE receives from NWP by approximately 20% beginning in 2007. PSE expects that the increase will be entirely recoverable from customers through the existing PGA mechanism. To date, the loss of capacity has not adversely impacted PSE’s ability to serve its gas customers, but customers on interruptible tariff rate schedules could be curtailed during peak events. PSE expects to continue meeting its customer needs throughout the pipeline capacity replacement period, and PSE has back-up oil supply for its combustion turbines.

CAPACITY RELEASE
FERC provided a capacity release mechanism as the means for holders of firm pipeline and storage entitlements to temporarily relinquish unutilized capacity to others in order to recoup all or a portion of the cost of such capacity. Capacity may be released through several methods including open bidding and by pre-arrangement. PSE continues to successfully mitigate a portion of the demand charges related to both storage and NWP pipeline capacity not utilized during off-peak periods through capacity release. WNG CAP I was formed to provide additional flexibility and benefits from capacity release. Capacity release benefits are passed on to customers through the PGA.PGA mechanism.



PSE offers programs designed to help new and existing customers use energy efficiently. PSE uses a variety of mechanisms including cost-effective financial incentives, information and technical services to enable customers to make energy-efficient choices with respect to building design, equipment and building systems, appliance purchases and operating practices.
Since May 1997, PSE has recovered electric energy conservationefficiency (or conservation) expenditures through a tariff rider mechanism. The rider mechanism allows PSE to defer the conservationefficiency expenditures and amortize them to expense as PSE concurrently collects the conservationefficiency expenditures in rates over a one-year period. As a result of the rider, there iselectric energy efficiency expenditures have no effect on earnings.
Since 1995, PSE has been authorized by the Washington Commission to defer gas energy conservationefficiency (or conservation) expenditures and recover them through a tariff tracker mechanism. The tracker mechanism allows PSE to defer conservationefficiency expenditures and recover them in rates over the subsequent year. The tracker mechanism also allows PSE to recover an Allowance for Funds Used to Conserve Energy on any outstanding balance that is not being recovered in rates. As a result of the tracker mechanism, gas energy efficiency expenditures have no impact on earnings.

Energy efficiency programs reduce customer consumption of energy thus impacting energy margins. The impact of load reductions are adjusted in rates at each general rate case.

ENVIRONMENT
        Puget Energy’s
The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulation by federal, state and local authorities. Due to the inherent uncertainties surrounding the development of federal and state environmental and energy laws and regulations, Puget Energythe Company cannot determine the impact such laws may have on its existing and future facilities. (See Note 1823 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of environmental sites.)


REGULATION OF EMISSIONS
PSE has an ownership interest in coal-fired, steam-electric generating plants at Colstrip, Montana, which are subject to regulation of emissions and other regulatory requirements. PSE also owns combustion turbine units in Westernwestern Washington, which are capable of being fueled by natural gas or diesel fuel. These combustion turbines are operated to comply with emission limits set forth in their respective air operating permits.
There is no assurance that in the future, environmental regulations affecting sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide particulate matter or nitrogen oxide emissions may not be further restricted, or that restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, or other combustion byproducts, such as mercury, may not be imposed.

In December 2003, Colstrip Units 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 received an information request from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relating to their compliance with the Clean Air Act New Source Review regulations. PSE is currently in discussions with the EPA concerning the information request. Neither the outcome of this matter nor any potential associated costs can be predicted at this time

FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Since the 1991 listing of the Snake River Sockeye salmon as an endangered species, one morea total of eight species of salmon hasand steelhead have been listed and two more have been proposedas endangered species, which may further influenceinfluences operations. Most directly associated with project operations, the Upper Columbia River Steelhead wasand the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook were listed as endangered species by the National Marine Fisheries Service in August 1997. Anticipating the Steelhead listing,1997 and March 1999, respectively. To address this exposure, the Mid-Columbia PUDs initiated consultation with federal and state agencies, Native American tribes and non-governmental organizations to secure operational protection through a long-term settlementsettlements and habitat conservation plan which includesplans (HCPs) for each affected project. The agreement provisions include fish protection and enhancement measures for the next 50 years. The negotiationsHCPs received the support of the resource agencies, have concluded among the Chelanbeen adopted by FERC and Douglas County PUDs and various fishery agencies, and final agreement is subject to a National Environmental Policy Act review and power purchaser approval. Generally, the agreement obligatesgenerally obligate the PUDs to achieve certain levels of passage efficiency for downstream migrants at their hydroelectric facilities and to fund certain habitat conservation measures. Grant County PUD has yetreached an agreement with the various parties in 2004 in a form substantially similar to reach agreementthe HCPs adopted by Douglas County PUD and Chelan County PUD. FERC issued an order approving that settlement and terminating the Mid-Columbia fish proceeding as to all parties on these issues.
December 16, 2004.
The proposed listings of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and spring Chinook salmon as endangered species for the upper Columbia River were approved in March 1999. The Company does not expect the listing of spring Chinook salmon as an endangered species for the upper Columbia River to result in markedly differing conditions for operations from previous listings in the area.
The completed listings of Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout as an endangered species in the fall of 1999 and Puget Sound Chinook salmon in the winter of 2001 are causing a number of changes to operations of governmental agencies and private entities in the region, including PSE. These changes may adversely affect hydrohydroelectric plant operations and permit issuance for facilities construction, and increase costs for processes and facilities. Because PSE relies substantially less on hydroelectric energy from the Puget Sound area than from the Mid-Columbia River and also because the impact on PSE operations in the Puget Sound area is not likely to impair significant generating resources, the impact of listing for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Bull Trout, while potentially representing cost exposure and operational constraints, should be


proportionately less than the effects of the Columbia River listings. PSE is actively engaging the federal agencies to address Endangered Species Act issues for PSE’s generating facilities. Consultation with federal agencies is ongoing.




The executive officers of Puget Energy as of JanuaryDecember 31, 2004 are listed below. Puget Energy considers the Chief Executive Officer of InfrastruX to be an executive officer of Puget Energy. For their business experience during the past five years, please refer to the table below regarding Puget Sound Energy’s executive officers. Officers of Puget Energy are elected for one-year terms.

NAME
AGE
OFFICES
S. P. Reynolds56President and Chief Executive Officer since January 2002. Director since January 2002.
J. W. Eldredge53    54Corporate Secretary and Chief Accounting Officer since April 1999.
D. E. Gaines4647Vice President Finance and Treasurer since March 2002.
M. T. Lennon4142President and Chief Executive Officer of InfrastruX since April 2003, President of InfrastruX, 2002 - 2003. Prior to joining InfrastruX, he served as Managing Director of Lennon Smith Advisors, LLC, an investment banking firm, 2000 - 2002, and Managing Director of Emerge Corporation, 1999 - - 2000.2002.
J. L. O' ConnorO’Connor4748Vice President and General Counsel since January 2003.
B. A. Valdman41Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer since January 2004.


The executive officers of Puget Sound Energy as of JanuaryDecember 31, 2004 are listed below along with their business experience during the past five years. Officers of Puget Sound Energy are elected for one-year terms.

NAME
AGE
OFFICES
S. P. Reynolds56President and Chief Executive Officer and Director since January 2002; President and Chief Executive Officer of Reynolds Energy International, 1998 - 2002; Director since January 2002.
D. P. Brady40Vice President Customer Services since February 2003; Director and Assistant to Chief Operating Officer, 2002 - 2003. Prior to joining PSE, he was Managing Director of Irvine Associates Merchant Banking Group, 2001 - 2002; Executive Vice President-Operations of Orcom Solutions, 2000 - 2001; Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Orcom Solutions, 1999 - 2000.2001.
P. K. Bussey4748Vice President Regional and Public Affairs since September 2003. Prior to joining PSE, he was President of the Washington Round Table, 1996 - 2003.
M.  N.  Clements44Vice President Human Resources and Labor Relations since September 2003. Prior to joining PSE, she was Vice President of Human Resources of Eddie Bauer, Inc., 1998 - 2003.
J. W. Eldredge5354Vice President, Corporate Secretary, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer since May 2001; Corporate Secretary, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer, 1993 - 2001.
D. E. Gaines4647Vice President Finance and Treasurer since March 2002; Vice President and Treasurer, 2001 - 2002; Treasurer, 1994 - 2001. Mr. Gaines is the brother of W. A. Gaines, Vice President Engineering and Contracting.
W.  A.  Gaines48 Vice President Engineering and Contracting since October 2003; Vice  President Energy Supply, 1997 - 2003. Mr. Gaines is the brother of D. E.  Gaines, Vice President Finance and Treasurer.
K. J. Harris3940Vice President GovernmentalRegulatory and Regulatory RelationsGovernment Affairs since February 2003; Vice President Regulatory Affairs, 2002 - 2003; Director Load Resource Strategies and Associate General Counsel, 2001 - 2002; Associate General Counsel, 1999 - 2001.
J. L. Henry5859Senior Vice President Energy Efficiency and Customer Services since February 2003; Director of Major Accounts, 2001 - 2003; Director Construction and Technical Field Services 2000-2001; Director Major Projects, 19972000 - 2000.2001.
E. M. Markell5253Senior Vice President Energy Resources since February 2003; Vice President Corporate Development, 2002 - 2003. Prior to joining PSE, he was Chief Financial Officer, Club One, Inc., 2000 - 2002; Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, United American Energy Corp., 1990 - 2000.2002.
S. McLain4748Senior Vice President Operations since February 2003; Vice President Operations - Delivery, 1999 - 2003.
J. L. O' ConnorO’Connor4748Vice President and General Counsel since January 2003. Prior to joining PSE, she was interim General Counsel, Starbucks Corporation, 2002; Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Starbucks Corporation, 2001 - 2002; Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Starbucks Corporation, 1998 - 2001.
J. M. Ryan42Vice President Risk Management and Strategic Planning since April 2004; Vice President Energy Portfolio Management, since December 2001.2001 - 2004. Prior to joining PSE, she was Managing Director of North American Marketing of TransAlta USA, 2001; Managing Director Origination of Merchant Energy Group of the Americas, Inc., 1997 - 2001.

B. A. Valdman41Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer since December 2003. Prior to joining PSE, he was Managing Director with JP Morgan Securities, Inc., 2000 - 2003 and a member of the NationalNatural Resource Group of JP Morgan Securities, Inc. since 1993 and a banker with JP Morgan since 1987.
P. M. Wiegand5152Vice President Project Development and Contract Management since July 2003; Vice President Corporate Planning, 2003; Vice President Corporate Planning and Performance, 2002 - 2003; Vice President Risk Management and Strategic Planning 2000 - 2002; Director of Budgets and Performance Management, 1999 - 2000.2002.




The principal electric generating plants and underground gas storage facilities owned by PSE are described under Item 1, “Business –Business - Electric Supply and Gas Supply”.Supply. PSE owns its transmission and distribution facilities and various other properties. Substantially all properties of PSE are subject to the liens of PSE’s mortgage indentures.
PSE’s corporate headquarters is housed in a leased building located in Bellevue, Washington.
InfrastruX operates a fleet of vehicles and equipment that it uses in its utility construction business. Its fleet is composed of owned and leased trucks and other specialized equipment such as backhoes, trenchers, boring machines, cranes and other equipment required to perform its work. InfrastruX owns some of the facilities out of which it operates and rents the remaining facilities.

The majority of InfrastruX’s owned facilities are subject to liens under existing debt and lines of credit. InfrastruX’s corporate headquarters is housed in a leased building located in Bellevue, Washington.



ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS


See the section titled “Proceedings Relating to the Western Power Market” under Item 7, “Management’sManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Operations-Proceedings Relating to the Western Power Market.
Contingencies arising out of the normal course of the Company’s business exist at December 31, 2003.2004. The ultimate resolution of these issues isare not expected to have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.



ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS


None.






ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'SREGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED
SHAREHOLDER MATTERS


Puget Energy’s common stock, the only class of common equity of Puget Energy, is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “PSD.” At December 31, 2003,February 23, 2005, there were approximately 43,20040,400 holders of record of Puget Energy’s common stock. The outstanding shares of PSE’s common stock, the only class of common equity of PSE, are held by Puget Energy and are not traded.
The following table shows the market price range of, and dividends paid on, Puget Energy’s common stock during the periods indicated in 20032004 and 2002.2003. Puget Energy and its predecessor companies have paid dividends on common stock each year since 1943 when such stock first became publicly held.

 
2003
 
2002
 
 PRICE RANGEDIVIDENDSPRICE RANGEDIVIDENDS
QUARTER ENDED
HIGH
LOW
PAID
HIGH
LOW
PAID
March 31 $23.00$18.10$0.25$23.60$19.20$0.46
June 30  24.40 20.78 0.25 21.23 19.27 0.25
September 30  24.17 21.02 0.25 22.50 16.63 0.25
December 31  23.99 22.14 0.25 22.64 18.75 0.25

 
2004
 
2003
 PRICE RANGEDIVIDENDS PRICE RANGEDIVIDENDS
QUARTER ENDEDHIGHLOWPAID HIGHLOWPAID
March 31$23.92$21.59$0.25 $23.00$18.10$0.25
June 3022.8820.510.25 24.4020.780.25
September 3023.0021.050.25 24.1721.020.25
December 3124.8122.270.25 23.9922.140.25

The amount and payment of future dividends will depend on Puget Energy’s financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and other factors deemed relevant by Puget Energy’s Board of Directors. The Board of Directors’ current policy is to pay out approximately 60% of normalized utility earnings in dividends.
Puget Energy’s primary source of funds for the payment of dividends to its shareholders is dividends received from PSE. PSE’s payment of common stock dividends to Puget Energy is restricted by provisions of certain covenants applicable to preferred stock and long-term debt contained in PSE’s Articles of Incorporation and electric and gas mortgage indentures. Under the most restrictive covenants of PSE, earnings reinvested in the business unrestricted as to payment of cash dividends were approximately $235.9$274.4 million at December 31, 2003.


2004.



ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA


The following tables show selected financial data. Puget Energy became the holding company for PSE on January 1, 2001 pursuant to a plan of exchange in which each share of PSE common stock was exchanged on a one-for-one basis for Puget Energy common stock. Puget Energy results are not on a comparable basis as InfrastruX had acquisitions from 2000 to 2003.

PUGET ENERGY
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
20031
2002
20012
2000
1999
Operating revenue $2,491,523$2,392,322$2,886,560$3,302,296$2,067,944
Operating income  305,175 309,669 297,121 363,872 307,816
Net income before cumulative effect 
    of accounting change  121,517 117,883 121,588 193,831 185,567
Income for common stock from 
   continuing operations  116,197 110,052 98,426 184,837 174,502
Basic earnings per common 
    share from continuing operations  1.23 1.24 1.14 2.16 2.06
Diluted earnings per common share 
   from continuing operations  1.22 1.24 1.14 2.16 2.06

Dividends per common share  1.00 1.21 1.84 1.84 1.84
Book value per common share  16.71 16.27 15.66 16.61 16.24

Total assets at year end $5,674,685$5,772,133$5,668,481$5,677,266$5,264,605
Long-term obligations  1,969,489 2,160,276 2,127,054 2,170,797 1,783,139
Preferred stock not subject to 
    mandatory redemption  -- 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Preferred stock subject to 
    mandatory redemption  1,889 43,162 50,662 58,162 65,662
Corporation obligated, mandatorily 
   redeemable preferred securities of 
   subsidiary trust holding solely 
    junior subordinated debentures 
    of the corporation  -- 300,000 300,000 100,000 100,000
Junior subordinated debentures of 
    the corporation payable to a 
    subsidiary trust holding 
    mandatorily redeemable 
    preferred securities  280,250 -- -- -- --



PUGET SOUND ENERGY
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
20031
2002
20012
2000
1999
Operating revenue $2,149,736$2,072,793$2,712,774$3,302,296$2,067,944
Operating income  297,904 294,593 288,480 363,872 307,816
Net income before cumulative effect of 
   accounting change  120,055 108,948 119,130 193,831 185,567
Income for common stock from 
   continuing operations  114,735 101,117 95,968 184,837 174,502

Total assets at year end $5,334,787$5,453,390$5,439,253$5,677,266$5,264,605
Long-term obligations  1,950,347 2,021,832 2,053,815 2,170,797 1,783,139
Preferred stock not subject to 
   mandatory redemption  -- 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Preferred stock subject to mandatory 
   redemption  1,889 43,162 50,662 58,162 65,662
Corporation obligated, mandatorily 
   redeemable preferred securities of 
   subsidiary trust holding solely 
   junior subordinated debentures of 
   the corporation  -- 300,000 300,000 100,000 100,000
Junior subordinated debentures of the 
   corporation payable to a subsidiary 
   trust holding mandatorily 
   redeemable preferred securities  280,250 -- -- -- --




Puget Energy
Summary of Operations
(Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)
Years Ended December 312004 
20031
2002
20012
20003
Operating revenue4
$2,568,813$2,382,803$2,315,181$2,886,560$3,302,296
Operating income 216,751 305,175 309,669 297,121 363,872
Net income before cumulative effect of
accounting change
 
 
55,022
 
 
116,366
 
 
110,052
 
 
113,175
 
 
193,831
Net income from continuing operations5
 55,022 116,197 110,052 98,426 184,837
Basic earnings per common share from
continuing operations
 0.55 
 
1.23
 
 
1.24
 
 
1.14
 
 
2.16
Diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations 0.55 
 
1.22
 
 
1.24
 
 
1.14
 
 
2.16
Dividends per common share$1.00$1.00$1.21$1.84$1.84
Book value per common share 16.25 16.71 16.27 15.66 16.61
Total assets at year end$5,833,369$5,699,002$5,772,133$5,668,481$5,677,266
Long-term obligations 2,212,532 1,969,489 2,160,276 2,127,054 2,170,797
Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption 1,889 1,889 43,162 50,662 58,162
Corporation obligated, mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trust holding solely junior subordinated debentures of the corporation -- 
 
 
--
 
 
 
300,000
 
 
 
300,000
 
 
 
100,000
Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities 280,250 
 
 
280,250
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
--
__________________________
1
In 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (FIN 46) which required the consolidation of PSE'sPSE’s 1995 Conservation Trust Transaction. As a result, revenues and expense increased $5.7 million with no effect on net income, and assets and liabilities increased $4.2 million in 2003. FIN 46 also required deconsolidation of PSE'sPSE’s trust preferred securities that are now classified as junior subordinated debt. This deconsolidation has no impact on assets, liabilities, receivables or earnings for 2003.
2
In 2001, SFAS No. 133 was implemented, which required derivative instruments to be valued at fair value.price.
3  
Amounts represent PSE activity prior to the formation of Puget Energy as a holding company of PSE on January 1, 2001.
4  
Operating Electric Revenues and Purchased Electricity expenses in 2003 and 2002 were revised as a result of implementing Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03” (EITF No. 03-11), which became effective on January 1, 2004. Operating Electric Revenues and Purchased Electricity expense for Puget Energy and Puget Sound Energy were reduced by $108.7 million and $77.1 million in 2003 and 2002, respectively, with no effect on net income. Information for 2001 and 2000 is not available, and therefore revenue and expense were not adjusted for the effects of EITF No. 03-11 in those years.
5  
Net income in 2000 includes preferred stock dividend accrual at PSE, which is treated as an other deduction at Puget Energy starting January 1, 2001.




Puget Sound Energy
Summary of Operations
(Dollars in Thousands)
Years Ended December 31  2004
      20031
2002
20012
      2000
Operating revenue3
$2,198,877$2,041,016$1,995,652$2,712,774$3,302,296
Operating income 288,241 297,904 294,593 288,480 363,8872
Net income before cumulative effect
of accounting change
 
 
126,192
 
 
120,055
 
 
108,948
 
 
119,130
 
 
193,831
Income for common stock from
continuing operations
 
 
126,192
 
 
114,735
 
 
101,117
 
 
95,968
 
 
184,837
Total assets at year end$5,564,087$5,359,104$5,453,390$5,439,253$5,677,266
Long-term obligations 2,064,360 1,950,347 2,021,832 2,053,815 2,170,797
Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption 1,889 1,889 43,162 50,662 58,162
Corporation obligated, mandatorily
redeemable preferred securities of
subsidiary trust holding solely junior
subordinated debentures of the corporation
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
 
300,000
 
 
 
 
300,000
 
 
 
 
100,000
Junior subordinated debentures of the
 corporation payable to a subsidiary trust
holding mandatorily redeemable preferred
securities
 
 
 
 
280,250
 
 
 
 
280,250
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
 
--
__________________________
1  
In 2003, FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (FIN 46) which required the consolidation of PSE’s 1995 Conservation Trust Transaction. As a result, revenues and expense increased $5.7 million with no effect on net income, and assets and liabilities increased $4.2 million in 2003. FIN 46 also required deconsolidation of PSE’s trust preferred securities that are now classified as junior subordinated debt. This deconsolidation has no impact on assets, liabilities, receivables or earnings for 2003.
2  
In 2001, SFAS No. 133 was implemented, which required derivative instruments to be valued at fair price.
3  
Operating Electric Revenues and Purchased Electricity Expenses in 2003 and 2002 were revised as a result of implementing Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03” (EITF No. 03-11), which became effective on January 1, 2004. Operating Electric revenues and Purchased Electricity expense for Puget Energy and Puget Sound Energy were reduced by $108.7 million and $77.1 million in 2003 and 2002, respectively, with no effect on net income. Information for 2001 and 2000 is not available, and therefore revenue and expense were not adjusted for the effects of EITF No. 03-11 in those years.


ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL
CONDITION
AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS


The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K. The discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, such as Puget Energy’s and PSE’sPuget Sound Energy’s (PSE) objectives, expectations and intentions. Puget Energy’s and PSE’s actual results could differ materially from results that may be anticipated by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the section entitled “Forward-Looking Statements” included elsewhere in this report. Words or phrases such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “plans,“ plans,” “predicts,” “projects,” “will likely result,” “will continue” and similar expressions are intended to identify certain of these forward-looking statements. However, these words are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. In addition, any statements that refer to expectations, projections or other characterizations of future events or circumstances are forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward–lookingforward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this report. Puget Energy’s and PSE’s actual results could differ materially from results that may be anticipated by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the section entitled “Forward-Looking Statements” included elsewhere in this report. Except as required by law, neither Puget Energy nor PSE undertakes an obligation to revise any forward-looking statements in order to reflect events or circumstances that may subsequently arise. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made in this report and in Puget Energy’s and PSE’s other reports filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect Puget Energy’s and PSE’s business, prospects and results of operations.



OVERVIEW
Puget Energy is an energy services holding company, and all of its operations are conducted through its two subsidiaries. These subsidiaries are PSE, a regulated electric and gas utility company, and InfrastruX, a utility construction and services company. On February 8, 2005, following a strategic review of InfrastruX, Puget Energy’s Board of Directors decided to exit the utility construction services sector. Puget Energy intends to monetize its interest in InfrastruX through sale or recapitalization and to invest the proceeds of such monetization in its regulated utility subsidiary, PSE.


PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PSE generates revenues from the sale of electric and gas services, mainly to residential and commercial customers within Washington State. A majority of PSE’s revenues are generated in the first and fourth quarters during the winter heating season in Washington State.
As a regulated utility company, PSE is subject to FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Washington Commission regulation which may impact a large array of business activities, including limitation of future rate increases; directed accounting requirements that may negatively impact earnings;


licensing of PSE-owned generation facilities; and other FERC and Washington Commission directives that may impact PSE’s long-term goals. In addition, PSE is subject to risks inherent to the utility industry as a whole, including weather changes affecting purchases and sales of energy; outages at owned and non-owned generation plants where energy is obtained; storms or other events which can damage electric distribution and transmission lines; and energy trading and wholesale market stability over time.

PSE’s main operational goal has been to provide reliable, safe and cost-effective and stable energy prices to its customers. To help accomplish this goal, PSE is attempting to be more self-sufficient in energy generation resources. Owning more generation resources rather than purchasing power through contracts and on the wholesale market is intended to allow customers’ rates to remain stable. As such, PSE is continually exploring new electric-power resource generation and long-term purchase power agreements to meet this goal. During 2004, PSE made progress in the processreaching this goal:



·  Purchased a 49.85% interest in a 250 MW capacity gas-fired generation facility in western Washington, which went into service in April 2004.
·  Signed a two-year purchase power agreement in the second quarter 2004 with another utility for 85 MW of energy with delivery beginning January 1, 2005.
·  Signed a non-binding letter of intent in September 2004 to purchase a wind generation facility with up to 230 MW of generation to be developed in central Washington State.
·  Signed a non-binding letter of intent in October 2004 to purchase a wind generation facility with up to 150 MW of generation to be developed in eastern Washington State.

These transactions and anticipates approval in early 2004. This purchase is the first stepproposed transactions are part of PSE’s long-term electric Least Cost Plan that was filed April 30,August 29, 2003 with the Washington Commission. The plan supports a strategy of diverse resource acquisitions including resources fueled by natural gas and coal, renewable resources and shared resources.

resources.PSE is in the process of updating its Least Cost Plan and expects to file the updated plan with the Washington Commission in the first half of 2005.


INFRASTRUX
Following a strategic review of InfrastruX conducted by Puget Energy management, on February 8, 2005, Puget Energy’s Board of Directors decided to exit the utility construction services sector. During 2005, Puget Energy intends to monetize its interest in InfrastruX through a sale or third party recapitalization and to invest the proceeds in PSE. The costs associated with exiting the InfrastruX business cannot be quantified at this time. However, Puget Energy believes that such costs will not be material given the effects of the impairment charge recorded in the fourth quarter 2004.
InfrastruX generates revenues mainly from maintenance services and construction contracts in the south/Midwest, Texas, north-centralsouth-central and eastern United States. AGenerally, the majority of its revenues are generated during the second and third quarters, which are generallytypically the most productive quarters for the construction industry due to longer daylight hours and generally better weather conditions.
InfrastruX is subject to risks associated with the construction industry, including inability to adequately estimate costs of projects that are bid uponon under fixed-fee contracts; continued economic downturn that limits the amount of projects available thereby reducing available profit margins fromdue to increased competition; the ability to integrate acquired companies within its operations without significant cost; and the ability to obtain adequate financing and bonding coverage to continue expansion and growth.
InfrastruX’s main goals have been continued growth and expansion into underdeveloped utility construction markets and to utilize its acquired entities to capitalize on depth of expertise, asset base, geographical location and workforce to provide services that local contractors cannot.cannot provide. InfrastruX has acquired 12 entities since 2000, including one acquisition in 2003.2000.


FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
PUGET ENERGY
All of the operations of Puget Energy are conducted through its subsidiaries, PSE and InfrastruX. Net income in 20032004 was $121.3$55.0 million on operating revenues of $2.5$2.6 billion compared to $117.9$116.2 million on operating revenues of $2.4 billion in 20022003 and $106.8$110.1 million on operating revenues of $2.9$2.3 billion in 2001. Income for common stock was $116.2 million in 2003, compared to $110.1 million in 2002 and $98.4 million in 2001.
2002.
Basic earnings per share in 20032004 were $0.55 on 99.5 million weighted average common shares outstanding compared to $1.23 on 94.8 million weighted average common shares outstanding compared toin 2003 and $1.24 on 88.4 million weighted average common shares outstanding in 2002 and $1.142002. Diluted earnings per share in 2004 were $0.55 on 86.499.9 million weighted average common shares outstanding in 2001. Diluted earnings per share werecompared to $1.22 on 95.3 million weighted average common shares outstanding compared toin 2003 and $1.24 on 88.8 million weighted average common shares outstanding in 20022002.
Net income in 2004 was adversely impacted by an InfrastruX non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $91.2 million ($76.6 million after tax and $1.14minority interest) and a $43.4 million ($28.2 million after-tax) disallowance of the return on 86.7the Tenaska gas supply regulatory asset as a result of a Washington Commission order in PSE’s Power Cost Only Rate Case (PCORC). Net income was also negatively impacted by an increase in depreciation expense of $10.0 million, weighted average common shares outstandingprimarily due to the acquisition of Frederickson 1 and other PSE infrastructure projects. These negative impacts were offset by improved electric margins of $5.9 million compared to 2003 and lower interest expense at PSE of $13.0 million. In addition, 2004 was not impacted by one-time tax benefits of $7.9 million or the write-down of $6.1 million in 2001.
the carrying value of a non-utility venture capital investment in 2003. Net income in 2004 was positively impacted by a $4.3 million increase in InfrastruX’s net income, excluding the goodwill impairment charge and net of minority interest. The net income increase at InfrastruX was due to improved operating efficiencies and improvements in weather conditions compared to 2003, which positively impacted productivity.
Net income in 2003 was positively impacted by an increase in utilityPSE’s net income of $10.9 million due to increased electric and gas margins primarily from a full year’s effect of the September 1, 2002 general gas rate increase effective September 1, 2002 and from increased sales volumes for electric and gas loads compared to 2002. In addition, net income in 2003 was positively impacted by lower interest expenses of $11.4$11.5 million. This was offset by a $6.1 million downward adjustment in the carrying value of a non-utility venture capital investment in the fourth quarter of 2003,2003; a $4.8 million increase in depreciation and amortizationamortization; and an $11.7 million decrease in gains on derivative instruments due to a 2002 gain from de-designated contracts from a non-creditworthy counterparty under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” In addition, federal tax refundsbenefits decreased in 2003 to $9.3 million compared to $10.3 million in 2002. Net income was also negatively impacted by a decrease in InfrastruXInfrastruX’s net income of $7.7 million in 2003 compared to 2002, net of minority interest, due to unusually wet weather affecting productivity in the first quarter of 2003 and increased competition in the marketplace.

        Net income in 2002 was positively impacted by an increase in utility net income of $4.6 million from 2001 due to increased electric and gas margins resulting from general tariff rate increases. In addition, net income was positively impacted by $10.3 million of federal tax refunds in 2002. Net income in 2002 was negatively impacted by a decrease in non-utility net income of $22.8 million primarily due to a decline in property sales from 2001 at PSE’s real estate investment and development subsidiary, Puget Western, Inc., and an $8.0 million gain on PSE’s sale of the assets in its ConneXt subsidiary in August 2001. This was partially offset by an increase of $6.9 million in net income, net of minority interest, at InfrastruX.
        Total kWh energy sales to retail consumers in 2003 were 19.6 billion compared with 19.3 billion in 2002 and 19.9 billion in 2001. Kilowatt-hour sales to wholesale customers were 5.1 billion in 2003, 3.5 billion in 2002 and 5.0 billion in 2001. Kilowatt-hours transported to transportation customers were 2.0 billion in 2003, 2.3 billion in 2002 and 0.4 billion in 2001.
        Total gas sales to retail consumers in 2003 were 815.7 million therms compared with 839.6 million therms in 2002 and 850.4 million therms in 2001. Total gas sales to transportation customers in 2003 were 209.5 million therms compared to 207.9 million therms in 2002 and 188.2 million therms in 2001.


PUGET SOUND ENERGY
        The table below sets forth changes in the results of operations for PSE and its subsidiaries.

INCREASE (DECREASE) OVER PRECEDING YEAR
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
  Operating revenue changes:        
    Electric interim and general rate increase  $2.3$57.0
    BPA residential exchange credit   (25.1) (49.7)
    Electric sales to other utilities and marketers   103.2 (445.7)
    Electric revenue sold at index rates to retail customers   (4.4) (183.9)
    Electric conservation trust credit   5.0 18.3
    Electric transportation revenue   (4.0) 13.0
    Electric load and other   66.6 91.7

     Total electric operating change   143.6 (499.3)

    Gas general rate increase   24.2 11.8
    Gas retail load and PGA rate change   (86.4) (131.7)
    Gas transportation revenue and other   (0.7) 2.0

     Total gas operating change   (62.9) (117.9)

    Other revenue   (3.8) (22.8)

       Total operating revenue change   76.9 (640.0)

  Operating expense changes:  
    Energy costs:  
      Purchased electricity   177.8 (273.3)
      Residential exchange power cost credit   (23.9) (74.1)
      Purchased gas   (77.9) (132.4)
      Electric generation fuel   (48.5) (167.9)
      Unrealized gain/loss on derivative instruments   11.7 (0.4)
    Utility operations and maintenance:  
      Production operations and maintenance   (2.0) 2.3
      Personal energy management expenses   (6.3) (5.9)
      Low-income program pass-through expenses   3.3 3.8
      Other utility operations and maintenance   8.4 20.2
    Other operations and maintenance   (0.4) (6.9)
    Depreciation and amortization   4.8 6.6
    Conservation amortization   16.0 11.0
    Taxes other than income taxes   (7.5) (5.0)
    Income taxes   18.1 (24.1)

       Total operating expense change   73.6 (646.1)

  Other income change (net of tax)   (3.6) (11.8)
  Interest charges change   (11.4) 4.5
  Cumulative effect of implementation of accounting change (net of tax)   0.2 (14.8)

  Net income change  $10.9$4.6

PSE’s operating revenues and associated expenses are not generated evenly during the year. Variations in energy usage by consumers occur from season to season and from month to month within a season, primarily as a result of weather conditions. PSE normally experiences its highest retail energy sales during the heating season in the first and fourth quarters of the year. Varying wholesale electric prices and the amount of hydroelectric energy supplies available to PSE also make quarter-to-quarter comparisons difficult. The following is additional information pertaining to the changes outlined in the above table.

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
2004 COMPARED TO 2003

ENERGY MARGINS
The following table displays the details of electric margin changes from 2003 to 2004.

  ELECTRIC MARGIN 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
          2004            2003         CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Electric retail sales revenue $1,310.9 $1,272.7 $38.2  3.0%
Electric transportation revenue  10.7  11.5  (0.8) (7.0)
Other electric revenue-gas supply resale  11.5  9.1  2.4  26.4 
Total electric revenue for margin  1,333.1  1,293.3  39.8  3.1 
Adjustments for amounts included in revenue:             
Pass-through tariff items  (25.4) (45.2) 19.8  43.8 
Pass-through revenue-sensitive taxes  (94.2) (91.0) (3.2) (3.5)
Residential exchange credit  174.5  173.8  0.7  0.4 
Net electric revenue for margin  1,388.0  1,330.9  57.1  4.3 
Minus power costs:             
Fuel  (80.7) (65.0) (15.7) (24.2)
Purchased electricity, net of sales to other utilities and marketers  (660.3) (635.2) (25.1) (4.0)
Total electric power costs  (741.0) (700.2) (40.8) (5.8)
Electric margin before PCA  647.0  630.7  16.3  2.6 
Tenaska disallowance reserve through May 23, 2004  (36.5) --  (36.5) * 
Tenaska reserve turnaround  10.5  --  10.5  * 
Power cost deferred under the PCA mechanism  19.1  3.5  15.6  * 
Electric margin $640.1 $634.2 $5.9  0.9%

Percent change not applicable.

Electric margin increased $19.3$5.9 million for 2003in 2004 compared to 20022003 due primarily to the non-reoccurrence of losses associated with the


resale of gas supply for electric generation. Electric margin increased $2.7 million from 2001 to 2002 as a result of an increase in kWh sales and the full-year effectPCORC rate increase. PSE incurred $34.8 million in excess power costs in 2003 before reaching the $40 million PCA mechanism cap in 2003. In addition, the PCORC rate increase of 3.2% related to the generalFrederickson 1 generating facility became effective on May 24, 2004. This rate case.increase provided an additional $6.5 million to electric margin in 2004 to recover utility operation and maintenance costs, depreciation and property taxes related to the Frederickson 1 generating facility. Also, retail customer kWh sales (residential, commercial and industrial customers) increased 1.5% in 2004 compared to 2003, which along with a change in customer class usage provided an additional $11.7 million to electric margin. These increases were partially offset by the disallowance of certain gas costs for the Tenaska generating facility also ordered in the PCORC, which resulted in a $43.4 million reduction of electric margin in 2004. In addition, a charge of $3.6 million associated with Colstrip Units 1 & 2 coal supply repricing arbitration and Colstrip Units 3 & 4 royalty charge resulted in a negative impact to electric margin. Electric margin is electric sales to retail and transportation customers less pass-through tariff items and revenue-sensitive taxes, and the cost of generating and purchasing electric energy sold to customers including transmission costs to bring electric energy to PSE’s service territory.


        Electric
The following table displays the details of gas margin for 2001 throughchanges from 2003 was:to 2004.

  GAS MARGIN 
(DOLLARS IN MILLION)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2004 2003 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Gas retail revenue $743.6 $609.6 $134.0  22.0%
Gas transportation revenue  13.0  13.8  (0.8) (5.8)
Total gas revenue for margin  756.6  623.4  133.2  21.4 
Adjustments for amounts included in revenue:             
Gas revenue hedge  --  0.2  (0.2) * 
Pass-through tariff items  (3.6) (3.8) 0.2  5.3 
Pass-through revenue-sensitive taxes  (59.3) (48.5) (10.8) (22.3)
Net gas revenue for margin  693.7  571.3  122.4  21.4 
Minus purchased gas costs  (451.3) (327.1) (124.2) (38.0)
Gas margin $242.4 $244.2 $(1.8) (0.7)%

 ELECTRIC MARGIN
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31:

2003
2002
2001
  Electric retail sales revenue  $1,272.7$1,260.9$1,366.3
  Electric transportation revenue   11.5 15.5 2.5
  Other electric revenue-gas supply resale   9.1 (20.3) (35.4)

  Total electric revenue for margin   1,293.3 1,256.1 1,333.4
  Adjustments for amounts included in revenue:  
     Pass-through tariff items (conservation and low-income tariffs)   (45.2) (32.1) (36.6)
     Pass-through revenue-sensitive taxes   (91.0) (88.5) (94.5)
     Residential exchange credit   173.8 150.0 75.9

        Net electric revenue for margin   1,330.9 1,285.5 1,278.2

  Minus power costs:  
     Electric generation fuel   (65.0) (113.5) (281.4)
     Purchased electricity, net of sales to other utilities and   (635.2) (557.1) (384.6)
     marketers  

        Total electric power costs   (700.2) (670.6) (666.0)

  Electric margin before PCA   630.7 614.9 612.2
  Power cost deferred under the PCA   3.5 -- --

  Electric margin  $634.2$614.9$612.2

Percent change not applicable.

Gas margin increased $19.1decreased $1.8 million in 20032004 compared to 20022003 primarily due to the effects of the gas general rate increase effective September 1, 2002. Gas margin increased $19.5 millionoverall warmer weather in 20022004 compared to 2001 due primarily2003, partially offset by customer additions in 2004. Heating degree days decreased 2.3% in 2004 compared to the gas general rate increase effective September 1, 2002 and increased usage by customers.2003, which resulted in a 1.5% reduction in therm sales. Gas margin is gas sales to retail and transportation customers less pass-through tariff items and revenue-sensitive taxes and the cost of gas purchased, including gas transportation costs to bring gas to PSE’s service territory.

        Gas margin
ELECTRIC OPERATING REVENUES
The table below sets forth changes in electric operating revenues for 2001 throughPSE from 2003 was:

 GAS MARGIN
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31:

2003
2002
2001
  Gas retail revenue  $609.6$673.2$793.1
  Gas transportation revenue   13.8 12.9 11.8

  Total gas revenue for margin   623.4 686.1 804.9
  Adjustments for amounts included in revenue:  
     Gas revenue hedge   0.2 0.6 --
     Pass-through tariff items (conservation and low-income tariffs)   (3.8) (2.3) (0.5)
     Pass-through revenue-sensitive taxes   (48.5) (54.3) (61.4)

        Net gas revenue for margin   571.3 630.1 743.0
  Minus purchased gas costs   (327.1) (405.0) (537.4)

  Gas margin  $244.2$225.1$205.6


PUGET SOUND ENERGYto 2004.


2003 COMPARED TO 2002
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2004 2003 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Electric operating revenues:         
Residential sales $628.9 $603.7 $25.2  4.2%
Commercial sales  581.0  556.0  25.0  4.5 
Industrial sales  88.8  88.2  0.6  0.7 
Transportation sales  10.7  11.5  (0.8) (7.0)
Sales to other utilities and marketers  56.5  82.8  (26.3) (31.8)
Other  57.1  58.5  (1.4) (2.4)
Total electric operating revenues $1,423.0 $1,400.7 $22.3  1.6%

OPERATING REVENUES – ELECTRIC
Electric operating revenues increased $143.6$22.3 million in 2004 compared to 2003 due to increases in residential and commercial customer usage and the effect of the PCORC rate increase. Residential and commercial electricity usage increased 182,296 MWh or 1.9% and 227,400 MWh or 2.8%, respectively, from 2003. The increase in electricity usage was mainly the result of a higher average number of customers served in 2004 compared to 2003. Average customers for the residential and commercial customer classes increased 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively, from 2003. In addition, the PCORC rate increase became effective on May 24, 2004 and provided a $24.5 million increase in electric operating revenue, net of a $5.8 million rate reduction due to the Tenaska disallowance.
Sales to other utilities and marketers decreased $26.3 million from 2003 primarily due to higher retail electric sales, which reduced excess generation for sale to the wholesale market. In 2003, warmer than normal temperatures, mainly in the first quarter, and improved hydroelectric conditions as compared to the original hydroelectric forecast provided excess energy supplies for sale to the wholesale market.
During 2004, the benefits of the Residential and Farm Energy Exchange Benefit credited to customers reduced electric operating revenues by $182.6 million compared to $181.9 million in 2003. This credit also reduces power costs by a corresponding amount with no impact on earnings. See Item 1, Business - Regulation and Rates - Residential and Small Farm Exchange Benefit Credit for further discussion.
During 2003, PSE collected in its electric general rate tariff as a reduction to revenue and remitted to a grantor trust $7.7 million. This was a result of PSE’s 1995 sale of future electric revenues associated with its investment in conservation assets. The impact of the 1995 sale of revenue was offset by reductions in conservation amortization and interest expense. PSE’s 1995 conservation trust transaction was consolidated in the third quarter 2003 to meet the guidance of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 46 (FIN 46) and, as a result, revenues increased $5.7 million in 2004 while conservation amortization and interest expense increased by a corresponding amount with no impact on earnings. The 1995 conservation trust assets were fully satisfied during September 2004.

GAS OPERATING REVENUES
The table below sets forth changes in gas operating revenues for PSE from 2003 to 2004.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2004 2003 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Gas operating revenues:         
Residential sales $479.0 $401.7 $77.3  19.2%
Commercial sales  225.8  178.2  47.6  26.7 
Industrial sales  38.8  29.7  9.1  30.6 
Transportation sales  13.0  13.8  (0.8) (5.8)
Other  12.7  10.8  1.9  17.6 
Total gas operating revenues $769.3 $634.2 $135.1  21.3%

Gas operating revenues increased $135.1 million or 21.3% in 2004 compared to 2003 due primarily to higher Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA) mechanism rates in 2004. The PGA mechanism rate charged to customers has increased twice since April 2003 reflecting the higher cost of natural gas provided to customers. On September 24, 2003, the Washington Commission approved a PGA mechanism rate increase of 13.3% annually across all classes of customers effective October 1, 2003. In addition, the Washington Commission approved a third PGA mechanism rate increase effective October 1, 2004 that increased rates 17.6% annually. The PGA mechanism passes through to customers increases or decreases in the gas supply portion of the natural gas service rates based upon changes in the price of natural gas purchased from producers and wholesale marketers or changes in gas pipeline transportation costs. PSE’s gas margin and net income are not affected by changes under the PGA mechanism. For 2004, the effects of the PGA mechanism rate increases provided an increase of $137.0 million in gas operating revenues. These rate increases were partially offset with lower therm sales due to 2.3% fewer heating degree days in 2004 compared to 2003.



OPERATING EXPENSES
The table below sets forth significant changes in operating expenses for PSE and its subsidiaries from 2003 to 2004.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2004 2003 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Purchased electricity $723.6 $714.5 $9.1  1.3%
Electric generation fuel  80.8  65.0  15.8  24.3 
Purchased gas  451.3  327.1  124.2  38.0 
Utility operations and maintenance  291.2  289.7  1.5  0.5 
Depreciation and amortization  228.6  220.1  8.5  3.9 
Conservation amortization  22.7  33.5  (10.8) (32.2)
Taxes other than income taxes  209.0  194.9  14.1  7.2 
Income taxes  77.1  70.9  6.2  8.7 

Purchased electricity expenses increased $9.1 million in 2004 compared to 2003 as a result of a $36.5 million disallowance associated with the Tenaska generating facility as ordered by the Washington Commission in the PCORC. This decrease was partially offset by lower purchases of electricity due to increased generation at PSE generating facilities. Total generation at PSE generating facilities in 2004 increased 82,430 MWh or 1.2% in 2004 compared to 2003.
PSE’s hydroelectric production and related power costs in 2004 and 2003 have continued to be negatively impacted by below-normal winter precipitation and reduced snow pack in the Pacific Northwest region. The January 3, 2005 Columbia Basin Runoff Summary published by the National Weather Service Northwest River Forecast Center indicated that the total observed runoff above Grand Coulee Reservoir for the period January through December 2004 was 88% of normal, which compares to 87% of normal for the same period in 2003. PSE cannot determine if this trend of lower than normal runoff will continue in future years nor what impact such a trend may have on the amount of electricity that will need to be purchased. PSE had previously reached the $40 million cumulative cap under the PCA mechanism in 2003 primarily due to increased power costs and adverse hydroelectric conditions. In 2004, PSE fell below the $40 million cumulative cap due to the Tenaska disallowance. Under the PCA mechanism, continued excess power costs and further increases in variable power costs through June 30, 2006 will be apportioned 99% to customers and 1% to PSE. PSE has reserved the Tenaska disallowance and as a result any future excess power costs will be offset by the reserve. For further discussion see Item 1 - Business - Regulation and Rates - Electric Regulation and Rates - Washington Commission Matters.
To meet customer demand, PSE economically dispatches resources in its power supply portfolio such as fossil-fuel generation, owned and contracted hydroelectric capacity and energy, and long-term contracted power. However, depending principally upon availability of hydroelectric energy, plant availability, fuel prices and/or changing load as a result of weather, PSE may sell surplus power or purchase deficit power in the wholesale market. PSE manages its core energy portfolio through short-term and intermediate-term off-system physical purchases and sales, and through other risk management techniques.
Electric generation fuel expense increased $15.8 million in 2004 compared to 2003 as a result of higher fuel costs for PSE-controlled gas-fired generation facilities and the addition of the Frederickson 1 generating facility, which was purchased and went into service in April 2004. In addition, the 12 months ended December 31, 2004 includes a $6.9 million charge related to a binding arbitration settlement between PSE and Western Energy Company (WECO), the supplier of coal to Colstrip Units 1 & 2. The binding decision retroactively set a new baseline cost per ton of coal supplied from July 31, 2001, and is applicable to the remaining term of the coal supply agreement through December 2009. Of the $6.9 million charge, $5.0 million is included in the PCA mechanism. PSE had previously accrued a reserve of $1.6 million in the fourth quarter 2003 related to the arbitration.
The 12 months ended December 31, 2004 also includes a loss reserve of $1.1 million recorded in the second quarter 2004 related to an order issued to WECO by the Minerals Management Services of the United States Department of the Interior (MMS) on April 29, 2004, to pay additional royalties concerning coal purchased by PSE for Colstrip Units 3 & 4. The order seeks payment of royalties for coal mined from federal land between 1997 and June 30, 2000. During that period, PSE’s coal price was reduced by a settlement agreement entered into in February 1997 among PSE, WECO and Montana Power Company that resolved disputes that were then pending. The order seeks to impute the price charged to PSE based on the other Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners’ contractual amounts. PSE is supporting WECO’s appeal of the order, but is also evaluating the basis of the claim.
In addition, the MMS issued two orders to WECO in 2002 and 2003 to pay additional royalties concerning coal sold to Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners. The orders assert that additional royalties are owed as a result of WECO not paying royalties in connection with revenue received by WECO from the Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners under a coal transportation agreement during the period October 1, 1991 through December 31, 2001. PSE’s share of the alleged additional royalties is $1.8 million, which is equivalent to PSE’s 25% ownership interest in Colstrip Units 3 & 4. Other parties may attempt to assert claims against WECO if the MMS position prevails. The transportation agreement provides for the construction and operation of a conveyor system that runs several miles from the mine to Colstrip Units 3 & 4. WECO has appealed these orders and PSE is monitoring the process. Based upon its review, PSE believes that the Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners have reasonable defenses in this matter. Neither the outcome of this matter nor the associated costs can be predicted at this time.
Purchased gas expenses increased $124.2 million in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily due to an increase in PGA rates as approved by the Washington Commission. The PGA mechanism allows PSE to recover expected gas costs, and defer, as a receivable or liability, any gas costs that exceed or fall short of this expected gas cost amount in PGA mechanism rates, including accrued interest. The PGA mechanism had a receivable balance at December 31, 2004 of $19.1 million compared to a liability balance of $12.0 million at December 31, 2003. A receivable balance in the PGA mechanism reflects a current underrecovery of market gas cost through rates and a liability balance reflects a current overrecovery of gas cost. For further discussion on PGA rates see Item 1 - Business - Gas Regulation and Rates.
Utility operations and maintenanceexpense increased $1.5 million in 2004 compared to 2003 which includes a decrease of $1.8 million related to low-income program costs that are passed-through in retail rates with no impact on earnings. As a result, the pre-tax impact on net income from utility operations and maintenance was an increase of $3.3 million due primarily to a $3.2 million increase in storm damage costs primarily from a severe ice storm that hit the Pacific Northwest in January 2004. PSE anticipates operation and maintenance expense to increase in future years as PSE invests in new generating resources and energy delivery infrastructure.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased $8.5 million in 2004 compared to 2003 due primarily to the effects of new plant placed in service during 2004, including $80.8 million in costs for the Frederickson 1 generating facility and $32.8 million for the Everett Delta gas transmission line. PSE anticipates depreciation expense will increase in future years as PSE invests in new generating resources and energy delivery infrastructure.
Conservation amortization decreased $10.8 million in 2004 compared to 2003 due to the conservation trust assets being fully amortized in September 2004. Conservation amortization is a pass-through tariff item with no impact on earnings.
Taxes other than income taxes increased $14.1 million in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily due to increases in revenue-based Washington State excise tax and municipal tax due to increased operating revenues. Revenue sensitive excise and municipal taxes have no impact on earnings.
Income taxes increased $6.2 million in 2004 compared to 2003 as a result of the non-recurrence in 2004 of $9.3 million in income tax benefits in 2003 offset by a one-time income tax benefit of $1.4 million in 2004 related to a 2001 tax audit.

OTHER INCOME, INTEREST CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
The table below sets forth significant changes in other income, interest charges and preferred stock dividends for PSE and its subsidiaries from 2003 to 2004.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2004 2003 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Other income (net of tax) $4.4 $1.6 $2.8  175.0%
Interest charges  166.4  179.4  (13.0) (7.2)
Preferred stock dividends  --  5.2  (5.2) (100.0)

Other incomeincreased $2.8 million (after-tax) due to the non-recurrence of a $4.0 million investment write-down in 2003 related to a non-utility venture capital investment and a $0.9 million collection in 2004 of a note previously written-off in 2002. These increases were partially offset with the non-recurrence of a $1.9 million gain from a security sale in 2003 and the non-recurrence of gains on corporate life insurance of $1.7 million in 2003.
Interest chargesdecreased $13.0 million in 2004 due to the redemption of $157.7 million of long-term debt with rates ranging from 6.07% to 7.80% in 2004, partially offset with the issuance of $200 million of variable-rate senior notes in July 2004.
Preferred stock dividends decreased $5.2 million in 2004 due to the redemption on November 1, 2003 of the 7.45% series preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption. The series was redeemed at par value plus accrued dividends.

INFRASTRUX
2004 COMPARED TO 2003
The table below sets forth significant changes in revenues and expenses for InfrastruX from 2003 to 2004.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2004 2003 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Operating revenue:         
Non-utility construction services $369.9 $341.8 $28.1  8.2%
              
Other operations and maintenance $320.2 $302.4 $17.8  5.9%
Depreciation and amortization  18.3  16.8  1.5  8.9 
Goodwill impairment  91.2  --  91.2  * 
Income taxes  (1.8) 1.6  (3.4) (212.5)
              
Interest charges $6.5 $5.5 $1.0  18.2%
Minority interest  7.1  (0.2) 7.3  * 

Percent change not applicable.

InfrastruX revenuesincreased $28.1 million due in part to the acquisition of one company late in the second quarter 2003 which added $12.4 million to revenues. Revenues from existing companies increased $8.7 million in 2004 compared to 2003 due to strong performance in the electric transmission sector of the construction services industry and new business in the Midwest region of the United States.
Other operations and maintenanceexpensesincreased $17.8 million due to increased utility construction in 2004 compared to 2003 and the acquisition of one company late in the second quarter 2003, which accounted for $11.8 million of the increase.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased $1.5 million in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily due to an increase in assets through a company acquisition late in the second quarter 2003 which accounted for $0.8 million of the increase and implementation of an integrated information technology platform across InfrastruX.
Goodwill impairment.In the fourth quarter 2004, as part of the required annual goodwill impairment review as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” InfrastruX recorded a non-cash, pre-tax goodwill impairment charge of $91.2 million. This charge reflected Puget Energy’s estimated fair value for InfrastruX in light of ongoing challenges in the utility construction services sector.
Income taxesdecreased $3.4 million in 2004 compared to 2003. Included in the change was a $25.0 million deferred income tax benefit associated with the goodwill impairment charge, offset by a $18.0 million valuation allowance against the deferred tax benefit as Puget Energy does not expect to utilize the full benefit. The remaining change in income tax was primarily the result of higher taxable income at InfrastruX in 2004 compared to 2003.
Interest charges increased $1.0 million in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily due to a higher average debt balance in 2004 than in 2003 and higher interest rates.
Minority interestincreased $7.3 million in 2004 compared to 2003 as a result of the change in net loss associated with the goodwill impairment charge in 2004.



PUGET SOUND ENERGY
2003 COMPARED TO 2002
ENERGYMARGINS
The following table displays the details of electric margin changes from 2002 to 2003.

  ELECTRIC MARGIN 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2003 2002 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Electric retail sales revenue $1,272.7 $1,260.9 $11.8  0.9%
Electric transportation revenue  11.5  15.6  (4.1) (26.3)
Other electric revenue-gas supply resale  9.1  (20.4) 29.5  144.6 
Total electric revenue for margin  1,293.3  1,256.1  37.2  3.0 
Adjustments for amounts included in revenue:             
Pass-through tariff items  (45.2) (32.1) (13.1) (40.8)
Pass-through revenue-sensitive taxes  (91.0) (88.5) (2.5) (2.8)
Residential exchange credit  173.8  150.0  23.8  15.9 
Net electric revenue for margin  1,330.9  1,285.5  45.4  3.5 
Minus power costs:             
Fuel  (65.0) (113.5) 48.5  42.7 
Purchased electricity, net of sales to other
utilities and marketers
  (635.2) (557.1) (78.1) (14.0)
Total electric power costs  (700.2) (670.6) (29.6) (4.4)
Electric margin before PCA  630.7  614.9  15.8  2.6 
Power cost deferred under the PCA mechanism  3.5  --  3.5  * 
Electric margin $634.2 $614.9 $19.3  3.1%

Percent change not applicable.

Electric margin increased $19.3 million for 2003 compared to 2002 due primarily to the non-recurrence of losses associated with the resale of gas supply for electric generation in 2002 and increased MWh sales of 1.5%. Electric margin is electric sales to retail and transportation customers less pass-through tariff items and revenue sensitive taxes, and the cost of generating and purchasing electric energy sold to customers including transmission costs to bring electric energy to PSE’s service territory.
The following table displays the details of gas margin changes from 2002 to 2003.

  GAS MARGIN 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2003 2002 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Gas retail revenue $609.6 $673.2 $(63.6) (9.4)%
Gas transportation revenue  13.8  12.9  0.9  7.0 
Total gas revenue for margin  623.4  686.1  (62.7) (9.1)
Adjustments for amounts included in revenue:             
Gas revenue hedge  0.2  0.6  (0.4) (66.7)
Pass-through tariff items  (3.8) (2.3) (1.5) (65.2)
Pass-through revenue-sensitive taxes  (48.5) (54.3) 5.8  10.7 
Net gas revenue for margin  571.3  630.1  (58.8) (9.3)
Minus purchased gas costs  (327.1) (405.0) 77.9  19.2 
Gas margin $244.2 $225.1 $19.1  8.5%

Gas margin increased $19.1 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to the effects of the gas general rate increase effective September 1, 2002 that resulted in a $24.2 million increase in revenues in 2003. The increase was offset by a 2.1% decline in therm sales in 2003. Gas margin is gas sales to retail and transportation customers less pass-through tariff items and revenue-sensitive taxes and the cost of gas purchased, including gas transportation costs to bring gas to PSE’s service territory.

ELECTRIC OPERATING REVENUES
The table below sets forth significant changes in electric operating revenues for PSE from 2002 to 2003.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2003 2002 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Electric operating revenues:             
Residential sales $603.7 $616.5 $(12.8) (2.0)%
Commercial sales  556.0  536.0  20.0  3.7 
Industrial sales  88.2  90.1  (1.9) (2.1)
Transportation sales  11.5  15.6  (4.1) (26.2)
Sales to other utilities and marketers  82.8  11.1  71.7  * 
Other  58.5  19.4  39.1  201.5 
Total electric operating revenues $1,400.7 $1,288.7 $112.0  8.7%

*Percent change not applicable.

Electric operating revenues increased $112.0 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due primarily to an increase of $103.2$71.7 million in wholesale electric sales to other utilities and marketers from greater surplus volumes. Wholesale sales volumes increased by 1.6 billion kWh640,176 MWh or 47.4%94.5% compared to 2002. Retail sales volumes increased 337,154 MWh or 1.8% to 19.6 billion kWh as a result of increased usage by commercial customers in 2003 compared to 2002. Electric operating revenues also increased by $27.4 million due primarily to the non-occurrence of 2002 losses on the sale of excess gas supply used for electric generation.
During 2003, the benefits of the Residential and Farm Energy Exchange Credit to customers reduced revenues by $181.9 million compared to $156.8 million in 2002. This credit also reducesreduced power costs by a corresponding amount with no impact on earnings. See Item 1, Business – Regulation and Rates – Residential and Small Farm Exchange Credit for further discussion.
During 2003, PSE collected in its electric general rate tariff as a reduction to revenue and remitted to a grantor trust $7.7 million as compared to $12.7 million for 2002 as a result of PSE’s 1995 sale of future electric revenues associated with its investment in conservation assets. The impact of the sale of revenue was offset by reductions in conservation amortization and interest expense. PSE’s 1995 conservation trust transaction was consolidated in the third quarter of 2003 to meet the guidance of FASB Interpretation No.FIN 46 (FIN 46) and, as a result, revenues increased $5.7 million while conservation amortization and interest expense increased by a corresponding amount with no impact on earnings. This amount was also forwarded to the grantor trust and any cash balance at the grantor trust iswas reported as restricted cash on the balance sheet. At December 31, 2003, the balance sheet assets and liabilities have increased by $4.2 million.

GAS OPERATING REVENUES
The table below sets forth significant changes in gas operating revenues for PSE operates within the western wholesale market and has made sales into the California energy market. During the fourth quarter of 2000, PSE made salesfrom 2002 to the California energy market on which the receivable amount is still outstanding. At December 31, 2003, PSE’s receivable from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and other counterparties, net of reserves, was $23.6 million. See the discussion of the CAISO receivable and California proceedings under “Proceedings Relating to the Western Power Market.”

OPERATING REVENUES – GAS2003.


(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2003 2002 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Gas operating revenues:         
Residential sales $401.7 $428.6 $(26.9) (6.3)%
Commercial sales  178.2  209.5  (31.3) (14.9)
Industrial sales  29.7  35.1  (5.4) (15.4)
Transportation sales  13.8  12.9  0.9  7.0 
Other  10.8  11.1  (0.3) (2.7)
Total gas operating revenues $634.2 $697.2 $(63.0) (9.0)%

Regulated gas utility revenues in 2003 compared to 2002 decreased by $62.9$63.0 million or 9.0% due primarily to lower Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA)PGA mechanism rates in 2003 as a result of refunding the previous overcollection of PGA mechanism gas costs. In addition, warmer temperatures in 2003 resulted in 8.5% fewer heating degree days as compared to 2002 resulting in lower therm sales.
PGA mechanism rates charged to customers were lower in 2003 compared to 2002 as a result of rate decreases of 7.3% and 12.5% which took effect September 1, 2002 and November 1, 2002, respectively, offset by a rate increase of 20.1% which took effect April 10, 2003. On September 24, 2003, the Washington Commission approved a PGAand another rate increase of an annual average of 13.3% across all groups of customers effective October 1, 2003. The PGA mechanism passes through to customers increases or decreases in the gas supply portion of the natural gas service rates based upon changes in the price of natural gas purchased from producers and wholesale marketers or changes in gas pipeline transportation costs.

        PSE’s gas margin (gas sales to retail and transportation customers less pass-through tariff items and revenue-sensitive taxes, and the cost of gas purchased, including gas transportation costs to bring gas to PSE’s service territory) and net income are not affected by changes under the PGA.

OTHER OPERATING REVENUES
Other operating revenues decreased $3.8 million in 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to a decrease in property sales gains for Puget Western, Inc., a PSE subsidiary, which generates a majority of its revenue through the development and sale of property.


OPERATING EXPENSES
The table below sets forth significant changes in operating expenses for PSE and its subsidiaries from 2002 to 2003.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2003 2002 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Purchased electricity $714.5 $568.2 $146.3  25.7%
Electric generation fuel  65.0  113.5  (48.5) (42.7)
Residential exchange power cost credit  (173.8) (149.9) (23.9) (15.9)
Purchased gas  327.1  405.0  (77.9) (19.2)
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments  0.1  (11.6) 11.7  100.8 
Utility operations and maintenance  289.7  286.2  3.5  1.2 
Depreciation and amortization  220.1  215.3  4.8  2.2 
Conservation amortization  33.4  17.5  15.9  90.9 
Taxes other than income taxes  194.9  202.4  (7.5) (3.7)
Income taxes  70.9  52.8  18.1  34.2 

Purchased electricityexpenses increased $177.8$146.3 million in 2003 compared to 2002. PSE’s hydroelectric production and related power costs in 2003 were negatively impacted by below-normal winter precipitation and snow pack in the Pacific Northwest region associated with an El Nino weather condition. The January 25, 2004 Columbia Basin Runoff Summary published by the National Weather Service Northwest River Forecast Center indicated that the total observed runoff above Grand Coulee reservoirReservoir for the period January through December 2003 was 87% of normal. This comparescompared to 108% of normal for the same period in 2002. PSE reached the $40
Electric generation fuel expense decreased $48.5 million cumulative cap under the PCA mechanism in 2003 primarily duecompared to increased power costs and adverse hydro conditions. Under the PCA mechanism, further increases in variable power costs through June 30, 2006 would be apportioned 99% to customers and 1% to PSE.
        To meet customer demand, PSE dispatches resources in its power supply portfolio such as fossil-fuel generation, owned and contracted hydro capacity and energy, and long-term contracted power. However, depending principally upon availability of hydroelectric energy, plant availability, fuel prices and/or changing load2002 as a result of weather, PSE may sell surpluslower fuel costs for PSE-controlled gas-fired generation facilities and the result of not operating the generating facilities due to available lower-cost wholesale power or purchase deficit power in the wholesale market. PSE manages its core energy portfolio through short and intermediate-term off-system physical purchases and sales, and through other risk management techniques. A PSE Risk Management Committee oversees energy portfolio exposures.
supply.
Residential exchange creditsassociated with the Residential Purchase and Sale Agreement with BPABonneville Power Administration (BPA) increased $23.9 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to the impact of a full year’s increased Residential and Farm Energy Exchange credit rate. The rate increased in January, March and October of 2002 for residential and small farm customers. Discussion of the amended Residential Purchase and Sale Agreement between PSE and BPA can be found under “RegulationItem 1 - Business - Regulation and Rates - Residential and Small Farm Exchange Benefit Credit. The residential exchange credits are passed through to eligible residential and small farm customers by a corresponding reduction in revenues.
Purchased gasexpenses decreased $77.9 million in 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to a 2.1% decrease in sales volume, which was partially offset by an increase in gas market prices.PGA rates. The PGA mechanism allows PSE to recover expected gas costs. PSE defers, as a receivable or liability,


any gas costs that exceed or fall short of the amount in PGA mechanism rates and accrues interest under the PGA.PGA mechanism. The PGA liability balance at December 31, 2003 was $12.0 million compared to a liability balance of $83.8 million at December 31, 2002.
Electric generation fuelexpense decreased $48.5 million in 2003 compared to 2002 as a result of lower fuel costs for PSE-controlled gas-fired generation facilities and the result of not operating the generating facilities due to available lower-cost wholesale power supply.

Unrealized gains/losses on derivative instrumentsincreased $11.7 million in 2003 compared to 2002 as a result of unrealized losses on gas hedge contracts that were de-designated in the fourth quarter of 2001 and settled in 2002. The unrealized gains and losses recorded in the income statement are the result of the change in the market value of derivative instruments not meeting cash flow hedge criteria. (For further discussion see Note 15.)
        PSE has had two contracts with a counterparty whose debt ratings were below investment grade since 2002. The first contract is a fixed for floating price natural gas swap contract for one of its electric generating facilities. In the fourth quarter of 2003, PSE agreed to a novation of this contract to a new counterparty which has strong credit ratings. As a result of the novation, the collateral that was held by the original counterparty was returned. The fixed for floating price natural gas swap contract has been designated since inception in 2000 as a qualifying cash flow hedge. The second contract, a physical gas supply contract for one of PSE’s electric generating facilities was marked-to-market in the fourth quarter of 2003. This contract was previously designated as a normal purchase under SFAS No. 133. PSE has concluded that it is appropriate to reserve the mark-to-market gain on this contract due to the credit quality of the counterparty in accordance with SFAS No. 133 guidance, as delivery is not probable through the term of the contract, which expires in December 2008.
Production
Utility operations and maintenancecosts decreased $2.0expense increased $3.5 million in 2003 compared to 2002, which included an increase of $3.3 million related to a full year of low-income program costs that were passed-through in retail rates with no impact on earnings. As a result, the pre-tax impact on net income from utility operations and maintenance expense was an increase of $0.2 million due primarily to an increase in electric overhead and underground line costs, gas distribution main costs, least cost planning costs, due diligence costs for power resource acquisition, certain costs associated with preparing the PCORC and meter reading expenses. The overall increase in utility operations and maintenance expenses was partially offset by a $2.0 million reduction of production operations and maintenance costs in 2003 compared to 2002 due to decreased operating costs of PSE’s combustion turbine plants which were operated at lower levels in 2003 than in 2002 due to lower wholesale power prices.
In addition, PSE’sPersonal Energy Management
TMenergy-efficiency program costs decreased $6.3 million in 2003 compared to 2002 reflecting a decreased emphasis on the program in light of relatively moderate energy prices and cancellation of the Time of Use program in November 2002.
        TheLow-Income Programapproved by the Washington Commission in the general rate case settlement began in July 2002, which resulted in increased costs of $3.3 million in 2003 compared to 2002. These costs are fully recovered in retail rates beginning at the program’s inception on July 1, 2002 for electric service and September 1, 2002 for gas service.
Other utility operations and maintenancecosts increased $8.4 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due primarily to an increase in electric overhead and underground line costs, gas distribution main costs, least cost planning costs, due diligence costs for power resource acquisition, certain costs associated with preparing the power cost only rate case and meter reading expenses. Also included in the results iswas pension income related to PSE’s defined benefit pension plan recorded under SFAS No. 87, “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions.” Pension and benefit costs arewhich is allocated between capital and operations and maintenance expense based on the distribution of labor costs in accordance with FERC guidelines. As a result, approximately 67.0% of the annual qualified pension income of $12.9 million for 2003 was recorded as a reduction in operations and maintenance expense compared to 66.8% ofor $17.7 million for 2002. Qualified pension income is expected to decline to $8.6 million in 2004. During the fourth quarter of 2003, the Puget SoundPacific Northwest region was hit by a severe windstorm that caused significant damage to PSE’s electric distribution system. The windstorm iswas considered a “catastrophic event” under Washington Commission guidelines and as a result, PSE was able to defer the repair cost of $10.1 million for later recovery in retail rates.
Depreciation and amortizationexpense increased $4.8 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due primarily to the effects of a new plant placed in service during the past year.
Conservation amortizationincreased $16.0$15.9 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to increased conservation expenditures and the result of consolidating the off-balance sheet conservation trust beginning July 1, 2003 in accordance with FIN 46. The consolidation of the conservation trust increased conservation amortization by $5.7 million for the period July through December 2003. Pass-through conservation costs are recovered through an electric conservation rider, a gas conservation tracker mechanism and a conservation trust rate schedule with no impact to earnings.
Taxes other than income taxesdecreased $7.5 million in 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to the 2002 property tax expense of $5.2 million related to the State of Oregon property tax bills covering a six-year period ending June 30, 2001 not recurring in 2003, a $1.4 million reduction in expense in the second quarter of 2003 related to the settlement of the State of Oregon property tax bills and a $2.8 million decrease in revenue-based Washington State excise tax and municipal tax. This was offset by a $1.6 million increase in theWashington State of Washington property taxes.
Income taxesincreased $18.1 million in 2003 compared to 2002 as a result of increased income offset by true-ups related to filing the prior year’s income tax returns, thatwhich reduced income tax expense by $3.0 million and a $6.2 million reduction in tax expense related to the favorable resolution of a federal income tax matter from 1997 to 2002 in the second quarter of 2003. The increase iswas also the result of the 2002 refundstax benefits totaling $10.3 million. The $10.3 million iswas composed of a $4.1 million refund related to the audit of the Company’s 1998 and 1999 federal income tax returns, a $3.5 million reduction to income tax expense representing an adjustment to 2001 federal income tax based on the 2001 federal tax return and a $2.7 million reduction in expense related to a refund of federal income taxes for 2000.



OTHER INCOME, INTEREST CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
The table below sets forth changes in other income, interest charges and preferred stock dividends for PSE and its subsidiaries from 2002 to 2003.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2003 2002 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Other income (net of tax) $1.6 $5.2 $(3.6) (69.2)%
Interest charges  179.4  190.9  (11.5) (6.0)
Preferred stock dividends  5.2  7.8  (2.6) (33.3)

Other income, net of federal income tax, decreased $3.6 million compared to 2002 reflecting a $4.0 million after-tax downward adjustment of the carrying value of a non-utility venture capital investment in the fourth quarter of 2003.

INTEREST CHARGES
Interest charges
decreased $11.4$11.5 million for 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to a decrease in long-term and short-term debt outstanding of $12.0 million and the maturity of $72.0 million of Medium-Term Notes with interest rates ranging from 6.20% to 7.02% during 2003, the early redemption of $123.0 million of Medium-Term Notes with interest rates ranging from 7.19% to 8.59% during 2003, and the refinancing of $161.9 million of Pollution Control Bonds with interest rates ranging from 5.875% to 7.25% to rates ranging from 5.00% to 5.10%. The decrease in interest expense was partially offset by the issuance of $150 million of 3.363% Senior Notessenior notes, with an interest rate of 3.36%, in May 2003. PSE was able to pay maturing notes and redeem other notes mainly with additional equity investments by Puget Energy in 2003 and 2002.

INFRASTRUX
        The table below sets forth changes in the results of operations for InfrastruX, net of minority interest.Preferred stock dividends

INCREASE (DECREASE) OVER PRECEDING YEAR
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003   
2002   
  Operating revenue change:       
       Other operating revenue  $22.3$145.7

  Operating expense change:  
       Other operations and maintenance   31.7 122.6
       Depreciation and amortization   3.3 4.6
       Taxes other than income taxes   0.5 7.8
       Income taxes   (5.1) 3.7

           Total operating expense change   30.4 138.7
  Other income change (net of tax)   (0.3) 2.7
  Interest charges change    -- 1.9
  Minority interest change   (0.7) 0.9

  Net income change  $(7.7)$6.9

        The following additional information pertains to the changes outlined in the table above.

INFRASTRUX
2003 COMPARED TO 2002

InfrastruX revenueincreased $22.3decreased $2.6 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to the redemption of the 7.45% series preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption for both sinking fund requirements and total redemption of the remaining shares in the series at par value plus accrued dividends in 2003.


INFRASTRUX
2003 COMPARED TO 2002
The table below sets forth significant changes in revenues and expenses for InfrastruX from 2002 to 2003.

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2003 2002 CHANGE 
PERCENT
CHANGE
 
Non-utility construction services revenue $341.8 $319.5 $22.3  7.0%
              
Other operations and maintenance $302.4 $270.7 $31.7  11.7%
Depreciation and amortization  16.8  13.5  3.3  24.4 
Income taxes  1.6  6.7  (5.1) (76.1)

Non-utility construction services revenue increased $22.3 million in 2003 due primarily to acquisitions of several companies during 2002 and 2003, which contributed to an increase of $44.4 million. Excluding the impact of acquisitions, InfrastruX revenue decreased $22.1 million from 2002 due primarily to general market weakness and changing activities on certain lines of business. InfrastruX records revenues as services are performed or on a percent of completion basis for fixed-price projects.
InfrastruX
Other operations and maintenanceexpenses increased $31.7 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due primarily to acquisitions of several companies during 2002 and 2003, which contributed to an increase of $37.1 million. Excluding the impact of acquisitions, operations and maintenance expenses decreased $5.4 million from 2002 due to lower productivity. The decrease, excluding the impact of acquisitions, was not proportionate to the decline in revenues due to the impact of severe wet weather on productivity during the first quarter of 2003 as well as the high costs of completing work in low-volume activities in 2003.
Depreciation and amortization expense increased by $3.3 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to acquisitions during 2003 and 2002, which were not owned during the full year of 2002.
Income taxesdecreased $5.1 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to lower income.



PUGET SOUND ENERGY
2002 COMPARED TO 2001

OPERATING REVENUES – ELECTRIC
        Electric operating revenues decreased $499.3 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to a decrease of $445.7 million in wholesale electric sales to other utilities and marketers due to lower surplus volumes and substantially lower prices in the wholesale electricity market. Wholesale sales volumes decreased by 1.5 billion kWh or 30.4%. Retail sales revenue decreased 7.7% primarily as a result of industrial and commercial customers on market index rates switching to transportation rate tariffs beginning in July 2001, as allowed by a Washington Commission order dated April 5, 2001 authorizing the establishment of a new electric transportation rate tariff. The decrease was offset by an interim electric rate surcharge in effect during the period April 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002, which increased electric revenue by $25 million, and a 4.6% electric general rate increase effective July 1, 2002, which increased electric revenue by approximately $32 million in 2002. Transportation revenues increased $13.0 million and volume increased 1.9 billion kWh in 2002.
        PSE operates its combustion turbine plants located in Western Washington primarily as peaking plants when it is cost-effective to do so. During 2001, PSE operated its combustion turbine plants extensively to meet both on-system and regional load requirements largely due to adverse hydroelectric conditions in the Pacific Northwest. For 2002, PSE did not operate the combustion turbines to the extent it did in 2001 since market prices did not support the dispatching of these units, and PSE could serve its customers with lower-cost resources. As a result, sales to other utilities and marketers declined in 2002 due to low wholesale energy prices and the reduction in operations of the combustion turbines.
        On June 20, 2002, the Washington Commission approved and adopted the settlement stipulation in the general rate case, putting new rates into effect on July 1, 2002 and establishing a PCA mechanism in the rate case settlement. The mechanism will account for a sharing of costs and benefits that are graduated over four levels of power cost variances, with an overall cap of $40 million (+/-) over the four-year period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006. The factors influencing the variability of power costs included in the proposal are primarily weather or market related.

OPERATING REVENUES – GAS
        Regulated gas utility revenues in 2002 compared to 2001 decreased by $117.9 million due primarily to PGA rate decreases as a result of lower natural gas prices that are passed through to customers. Gas delivered for transportation customers increased $1.1 million or 19.7 million therms in 2002.
        On August 29, 2001, the Washington Commission approved a decrease in PSE’s natural gas rates of 8.9% due to lower natural gas costs purchased for customers under terms of the PGA mechanism effective September 1, 2001. Also, on May 24, 2002, the Washington Commission allowed a decrease in PGA rates of 21.2% to become effective on June 1, 2002. This ended a temporary surcharge that went into effect September 1, 2001. The PGA mechanism passes through to customers increases or decreases in the gas supply portion of the natural gas service rates based upon changes in the price of natural gas purchased from producers and wholesale marketers or changes in gas pipeline transportation costs. PSE’s gas margin and net income are not affected by changes under the PGA.
        On August 28, 2002, the Washington Commission approved a 5.8% gas service rate increase in revenue to cover higher costs of providing natural gas service to customers. This service-related increase in revenues of approximately $35.6 million annually was offset by an annual $45 million or 7.3% PGA rate reduction, also approved on August 28, 2002. Both rate actions became effective September 1, 2002.
        On September 30, 2002, PSE filed a proposal with the Washington Commission to reduce natural gas supply rates under the PGA for a third time in 2002. The Washington Commission approved the proposal on October 30, 2002 and PSE lowered gas rates through the PGA by approximately 12.5% effective November 1, 2002.

OTHER REVENUES
        Other operating revenues decreased $22.8 million primarily due to a $22.9 million decrease in the gross margin on property sales from PSE’s real estate investment and development subsidiary, Puget Western, Inc.

OPERATING EXPENSES
Purchased electricityexpenses decreased $273.3 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due to the dramatic decline of wholesale electricity prices since June 2001 and an 83-day unplanned outage of one of PSE’s 104 MW combustion turbine electric generating units located at its Fredonia generating station from February 21, 2001 to May 14, 2001, resulting in higher purchased electricity costs during 2001. In addition, the historic low hydroelectric power generation conditions experienced in 2001 in a high-priced wholesale market forced PSE to purchase additional energy during that period to meet retail electric customer loads.
        In a normal water year, PSE obtains about 38% of its energy supply from low-cost hydroelectric facilities, primarily from dams below Grand Coulee on the Columbia River. PSE’s share of the power costs through December 31, 2002 was $5.2 million.
Residential exchange creditsassociated with the Residential Purchase and Sale Agreement with BPA increased $74.1 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due to the amended Residential Purchase and Sale Agreement between PSE and BPA reflecting increased benefits passed on to residential and small farm customers. As of July 2001, all residential exchange credits are passed through to eligible residential and small farm customers by a corresponding reduction in revenues.
Purchased gasexpenses decreased $132.4 million in 2002 compared to 2001 primarily due to the impact of decreased gas costs, which are passed through to customers through the PGA mechanism, offset by a 1% increase in sales volumes. The PGA allows PSE to recover expected gas costs. PSE defers, as a receivable or liability, any gas costs that exceed or fall short of the amount in PGA rates and accrues interest under the PGA. The PGA balance was a receivable at December 31, 2001 of $37.2 million while the balance at December 31, 2002 was a liability of $83.8 million.


Electric generation fuelexpense decreased $167.9 million in 2002 compared to 2001 as a result of decreased generation costs at PSE-controlled combustion turbine facilities and lower wholesale energy prices. These facilities operated at much higher levels during 2001 compared to 2002 to meet retail electric customer loads due to adverse hydroelectric conditions in 2001.
Unrealized gains/losses on derivative instrumentsduring 2002 resulted in a decrease in expense of $0.4 million. The unrealized gains and losses recorded in the income statement are the result of the change in the market value of derivative instruments not meeting cash flow hedge criteria. In addition, SFAS No. 133 was adopted on January 1, 2001, and as a result, a one-time $14.8 million after-tax transition loss was recorded in 2001 from recognizing the cumulative effect of this change in accounting principle.
Production operations and maintenancecosts increased $2.3 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to a $2.0 million pre-tax charge related to an industrial accident at Colstrip Units 1 and 2, of which PSE is a 50% owner, overall higher operating costs for the Colstrip generating facilities and the settlement of a combustion turbine insurance claim.
        PSE’sPersonal Energy ManagementTMenergy-efficiency program costs decreased $5.9 million in 2002 compared to 2001, reflecting a decreased emphasis on the program in light of relatively moderate energy prices and cancellation of the Time of Use program in November 2002.
        A newLow-Income Programapproved by the Washington Commission in the general rate case settlement began in July 2002 which resulted in increased costs of $3.8 million in 2002 compared to 2001. These costs are fully recovered in retail rates beginning at the program’s inception on July 1, 2002 for electric and September 1, 2002 for gas.
Other utility operations and maintenancecosts increased $20.2 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to higher expense related to a one-time PSE employee severance cost totaling $4.2 million related to strategic outsourcing of operations work to service providers, and an overall increase in administrative and meter reading expenses. Also included in the results is pension income related to PSE’s defined benefit pension plan recorded under SFAS No. 87, “Employers’ Accounting for Pensions.” Pension and benefit costs are allocated between capital and operations and maintenance expenses based on the distribution of labor costs in accordance with FERC accounting instructions. As a result, approximately 66.8% of the annual qualified pension income of $17.7 million for 2002 was recorded as a reduction in operations and maintenance expense compared to 58.0% of $20.0 million for 2001.
        PSE’sother operations and maintenanceexpenses decreased $6.9 million in 2002 compared to 2001 primarily due to a decrease in operating expenses at ConneXt, the assets of which were sold in the third quarter of 2001.
Depreciation and amortizationexpense increased $6.6 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to the effects of additional plant placed into service at PSE during 2002.
Conservation amortizationincreased $11.0 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due to increased conservation expenditures. These costs are recovered in conservation rider and tracker mechanisms with no impact to earnings.
Taxes other than income taxesdecreased $5.0 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to a decrease in revenue-based Washington State excise tax and municipal tax. This was offset by a municipal tax expense of $1.7 million recorded in 2002 related to various claims by cities that PSE underpaid municipal taxes owed as a result of not collecting the tax in certain rural areas that were annexed by cities. The offset also includes a one-time property tax expense of $5.2 million covering a six-year period ending June 30, 2001 related to Oregon State property tax bills on PSE’s long-term Third AC Transmission Intertie contract.
Income taxesdecreased $24.1 million in 2002 compared to 2001. The decrease in 2002 included a total of $10.3 million in refunds at PSE which are composed of $4.1 million related to the audit of the Company’s 1998 and 1999 federal income tax returns, a $3.5 million reduction to expense representing an adjustment to 2001 federal income taxes based on the 2001 federal tax return and a $2.7 million reduction in expense recorded in the fourth quarter of 2002 related to a refund of federal income taxes for 2000.

OTHER INCOME
        Other income, net of federal income tax, decreased $11.8 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to a one-time $8.0 million after-tax gain realized by PSE on the sale of ConneXt’s assets in the third quarter of 2001.

INTEREST CHARGES
        Interest charges, which consist of interest and amortization on long-term debt and other interest, increased $4.5 million in 2002 compared to 2001 primarily as a result of a full year’s interest expense on the issuance of $200 million 8.40% Trust Preferred Securities in May 2001. Other interest expense increased due primarily to a PGA liability (over-recovery of gas costs in rates) in 2002 compared to a PGA asset (under-recovery of gas costs in rates) in 2001. Under the PGA mechanism, interest is accrued on deferred balances.

INFRASTRUX
2002 COMPARED TO 2001

InfrastruX revenueincreased $145.7 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to acquisitions of several companies during 2001 and 2002, which contributed to an increase of $126.0 million. Excluding the impact of acquisitions, InfrastruX revenue increased $18.7 million from 2001 and was impacted positively by ice storm restoration work performed in Oklahoma by InfrastruX’s Texas companies and continued strong performance of remediation services in the utility industry. InfrastruX records revenues as services are performed or on a percent of completion basis for fixed-price projects.
InfrastruX operations and maintenanceexpenses increased $122.6 million in 2002 compared to 2001 primarily due to acquisitions during 2001 and 2002, which contributed to an increase of $103.8 million. Excluding the impact of acquisitions, InfrastruX operations and maintenance expenses increased $18.9 million from 2001 and were impacted by the increase of corporate infrastructure to support a growing organization, additional costs of direct wages, construction costs and higher insurance costs incurred to support an increased revenue base.


Depreciation and amortizationincreased by $4.6 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due to acquisitions during 2001 and 2000, which contributed $3.5 million. Increases in depreciation of $1.1 million from core companies were due primarily to the acquisition of strategic assets to support areas of InfrastruX where significant growth opportunities exist.
Taxes other than income taxesincreased $7.8 million in 2002 compared to 2001 primarily due to a $7.3 million increase in payroll tax resulting from an increased workforce as acquisitions were completed.
Income taxesincreased $3.7 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to the acquisition of companies during 2001 and 2002. Acquired companies accounted for an increase of $5.8 million offset by a reduction in the effective tax rate due to certain non-deductible or partially deductible items.
Interest chargesincreased $1.9 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due to an increase in the amount drawn on InfrastruX’s revolving credit facilities primarily used for funding acquisitions.
Other income,net of federal income tax, increased $2.7 million in 2002 compared to 2001 due primarily to implementation of SFAS No. 142 which ceased amortization of goodwill. Goodwill amortization expense in 2001 was $2.8 million.

CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY


CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
Puget Energy.The following are Puget Energy'sEnergy’s aggregate consolidated (including PSE) contractual and commercial commitments as of December 31, 2003:2004:

Puget Energy Payments Due Per Period
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

Total
2004
2005-
2006

2007-
2008

2009 and
Thereafter

Long-term debt  $2,216.3$246.8$128.3$307.3$1,533.9
Short-term debt   13.9 13.9 -- -- --
Junior subordinated debentures payable to a  
  subsidiary trust (1)   280.3 -- -- -- 280.3
Mandatorily redeemable preferred stock   1.9 -- -- -- 1.9
Service contract obligations   181.0 21.7 45.0 47.4 66.9
Capital lease obligations   6.5 1.6 2.9 2.0 --
Non-cancelable operating leases   72.5 18.0 25.1 19.0 10.4
Fredonia combustion turbines lease (2)   69.6 4.5 8.7 8.5 47.9
Energy purchase obligations   4,737.4 928.2 1,245.0 1,036.7 1,527.5
Financial hedge obligations   67.0 30.5 17.7 18.8 --
Non-qualified pension funding   38.6 11.1 3.1 4.5 19.9
 
   Total contractual cash obligations  $7,685.0$1,276.3$1,475.8$1,444.2$3,488.7
 

  Amount of Commitment
Expiration Per Period

COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

Total
2004
2005-
2006

2007-
2008

2009 and
Thereafter

Guarantees (3)  $137.0$ --$137.0$ --$ --
Liquidity facilities - available (4)   288.5 249.5 39.0 --  --
Lines of credit - available (5)   39.1 26.1 3.0 10.0  --
Energy operations letter of credit (6)   0.5 0.5 -- --  --
 
   Total commercial commitments  $465.1$276.1$179.0$10.0$ --
 
Puget Energy
   
Payments Due Per Period
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
Total
 
2005
2006-
2007
2008-
2009
2010 &
Thereafter
Long-term debt$2,251.4$38.9$552.0$339.5$1,321.0
Short-term debt 8.3 8.3 -- -- --
Junior subordinated debentures payable
to a subsidiary trust1
 
 
280.3
 
 
--
 
 
--
 
 
--
 
 
280.3
Mandatorily redeemable preferred stock 1.9 -- -- -- 1.9
Service contract obligations 168.6 21.5 48.6 47.7 50.8
Capital lease obligations 7.0 2.0 3.6 1.4 --
Non-cancelable operating leases 129.5 19.3 37.3 26.8 46.1
Fredonia combustion turbines lease2
 65.3 4.6 8.6 8.3 43.8
Energy purchase obligations 4,988.2 929.4 1,491.0 1,278.2 1,289.6
Financial hedge obligations 20.0 6.2 11.9 1.9 --
Pension funding 45.7 4.3 8.2 9.8 23.4
Total contractual cash obligations$7,966.2$1,034.5$2,161.2$1,713.6$3,056.9

 
   
Amount of Committment
Expiration Per Period
COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
Total
 
2005
2006-
2007
2008-
2009
2010 &
Thereafter
Guarantees3
$131.0$--$131.0$--$--
Liquidity facilities - available4
 349.5 -- 349.5 -- --
Lines of credit - available5
 53.6 25.4 28.2 -- --
Energy operations letter of credit 0.5 0.5 -- -- --
Total commercial commitments$534.6$25.9$508.7$--$--
_______________________
(1)1  
In 1997 and 2001, PSE formed Puget Sound Energy Capital Trust I and Puget Sound Energy Capital Trust II, respectively, for the sole purpose of issuing and selling preferred securities (Trust Securities) to investors and lending the proceedsissuing common securities to PSE. The proceeds from the sale of Trust Securities were used by the Trusts to purchase Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures) from PSE. The Debentures are the sole assets of the Trusts and PSE owns all common securities of the Trusts.

(2)2  In April 2001, PSE revised its master operating lease to $70 million plus interest with a financial institution.
See “Fredonia 3 and 4 Operating Lease” under “Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” below for further discussion.below.
(3)3  
In June 2001,May 2004, InfrastruX signed a three-year credit agreement with severala group of banks to provide up to $150 million in financing. Under the credit agreement, Puget Energy is the guarantor of the line of credit. Certain InfrastruX subsidiaries also have certain borrowing capacities for working capital purposes of which Puget Energy is not thea guarantor.
(4)4  
At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE had available a $250$350 million unsecured credit agreement expiring in June 2007 and a three-year $150 million receivables securitization facility.facility that expires in December 2005. At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE had available $39.0 millionno amounts of receivables available for sale under its receivables securitization facility. See “Accounts Receivable Securitization Program” under “Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” below for further discussions.discussion. The credit agreement and securitization facility provide credit support for an outstanding letter of credit totaling $0.5 million, thereby effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity under these liquidity facilities to $288.5$349.5 million.
(5)5  
Puget Energy has a $15 million line of credit with a bank. At December 31, 2003,2004, $5.0 million was outstanding, reducingleaving $10.0 million available to borrow under the availableagreement. Puget Energy reduced the borrowing capacity under this line of credit to $10 million.$5.0 million on February 1, 2005. InfrastruX has $34.7$186.7 million in lines of credit with various banks to fund capital credit requirements of InfrastruX and its subsidiaries. InfrastruX and its subsidiaries had $139.3 million outstanding loansunder their credit agreements and letters of $13.9credit of $3.8 million at December 31, 2004, effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity under these lines of credit to $20.8$43.6 million.
(6)In May 2002, PSE provided an energy trading counterparty a letter of credit in the amount of $0.5 million to satisfy the counterparty’s credit requirements following PSE’s senior unsecured debt downgrade in October 2001. The letter of credit has been renewed and expires on March 15, 2004.



Puget Sound Energy.Energy. The following are PSE'sPSE’s aggregate contractual and commercial commitments as of December 31, 2003:2004:

Puget Sound Energy Payments Due Per Period
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

Total
2004
2005-
2006

2007-
2008

2009 and
Thereafter

Long-term debt  $2,053.0$102.6$112.0$304.5$1,533.9
Junior subordinated debentures payable to a  
  subsidiary trust (1)   280.3 -- -- -- 280.3
Mandatorily redeemable preferred stock   1.9 -- -- -- 1.9
Service contract obligations   181.0 21.7 45.0 47.4 66.9
Non-cancelable operating leases   55.5 10.7 17.6 16.8 10.4
Fredonia combustion turbines lease (2)   69.6 4.5 8.7 8.5 47.9
Energy purchase obligations   4,737.4 928.2 1,245.0 1,036.7 1,527.5
Financial hedge obligations   67.0 30.5 17.7 18.8 --
Non-qualified pension funding   38.6 11.1 3.1 4.5 19.9
 
   Total contractual cash obligations  $7,484.3$1,109.3$1,449.1$1,437.2$3,488.7
 
  Amount of Commitment
Expiration Per Period

COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

Total
2004
2005-
2006

2007-
2008

2009 and
Thereafter

Liquidity facilities - available (3)  $288.5$249.5$39.0$--$ --
Energy operations letter of credit (4)   0.5 0.5 -- --  --
 
   Total commercial commitments  $289.0$250.0$39.0$ --$ --
 


Puget Sound Energy
   Payments Due Per Period
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
Total
 
2005
2006-
2007
2008-
2009
2010 &
Thereafter
Long-term debt$2,095.4$31.0$406.0$337.4$1,321.0
Junior subordinated debentures payable
to a subsidiary trust1
 
 
280.3
 
 
--
 
 
--
 
 
--
 
 
280.3
Mandatorily redeemable preferred stock 1.9 -- -- -- 1.9
Service contract obligations 168.6 21.5 48.6 47.7 50.8
Non-cancelable operating leases 116.4 12.8 31.6 26.0 46.0
Fredonia combustion turbines lease2
 65.3 4.6 8.6 8.3 43.8
Energy purchase obligations 4,988.2 929.4 1,491.0 1,278.2 1,289.6
Financial hedge obligations 20.0 6.2 11.9 1.9 --
Pension funding 45.7 4.3 8.2 9.8 23.4
Total contractual cash obligations$7,781.8$1,009.8$2,005.9$1,709.3$3,056.8

    
Amount of Commitment
Expiration Per Period
COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
Total
 
2005
2006-
2007
2008-
2009
2010 &
Thereafter
Liquidity facilities - available3
$349.5$--$349.5$--$--
Energy operations letter of credit 0.5 0.5 -- -- --
Total commercial commitments$350.0$0.5$349.5$--$--
_______________________
(1)1  
See note (1) on previous table.1 above.
(2)2  See "Fredonia 3 and 4 Operating Lease" under "Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements" below for further discussion.
(3)
See note (4) on previous table respect to PSE.2 above.
(4)3  
See note (6) on previous table.4 above.


OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SECURITIZATION PROGRAM
In order to provide a source of liquidity forto PSE at an attractive cost, of capital rates, PSE entered into a Receivables Sales Agreement with Rainier Receivables, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of PSE in December 2002. Pursuant to the Receivables Sales Agreement, PSE sold all of its utility customercustomers’ accounts receivable and unbilled utility revenues to Rainier Receivables. Concurrently with entering into the Receivables Sales Agreement, Rainier Receivables entered into a Receivables Purchase Agreement with PSE and a third party. The Receivables Purchase


Agreement allows Rainier Receivables to sell the receivables purchased from PSE to the third party. The amount of receivables sold by Rainier Receivables is not permitted to exceed $150 million at any time. However, the maximum amount may be less than $150 million depending on the outstanding eligible amount of PSE’s receivables, which fluctuate with the seasonality of energy sales to customers.

The receivables securitization facility is the functional equivalent of a secured revolving line of credit.credit secured by receivables. In the event Rainier Receivables elects to sell receivables under the Receivables Purchase Agreement, Rainier Receivables is required to pay fees to the purchasers fees that are comparable to interest rates on a revolving line of credit. As receivables are collected by PSE as agent for the receivables purchasers, the outstanding amount of receivables purchasedheld by the purchasers declines until Rainier Receivables elects to sell additional receivables to the purchasers.
The receivables securitization facility has a three-year term,expires in December 2005, but is terminable by PSE and Rainier Receivables upon notice to the receivables purchasers. At December 31, 2004, Rainier Receivables had fully utilized its $150 million available balance under the receivable securitization facility, and therefore had no additional available balances to be sold under it.
During the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, Rainier Receivables had sold $111.0a cumulative $600.2 million in accounts receivable and the maximum remaining$348.0 million of receivables, available for sale was $39.0 million.

respectively.

FREDONIA 3 AND 4 OPERATING LEASE
PSE leases two combustion turbines for its Fredonia 3 and 4 electric generating facility pursuant to a master operating lease that was amended for this purpose in April 2001. The lease has a term expiring in 2011, but can be canceled by PSE after August 2004.at any time. Payments under the lease vary with changes in the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE’s outstanding balance under the lease was $59.1$56.3 million. The expected residual value under the lease is the lesser of $37.4 million or 60% of the cost of the equipment. In the event the equipment is sold to a third party upon termination of the lease and the aggregate sales proceeds are less than the unamortized value of the equipment, PSE would be required to pay the lessor contingent rent in an amount equal to the deficiency up to a maximum of 87% of the unamortized value of the equipment.


UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
        Current utility
Utility construction expenditures for generation, transmission and distribution are designed to meet continuing customer growth and to improve efficiencies of PSE’s energy delivery systems. Construction expenditures, excluding equity Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC), were $270.0$393.9 million in 2003. PSE expects2004. Utility construction expenditures willin 2005, 2006 and 2007 are expected to be $380 million, $400 million and $384 million, respectively, excluding amounts for new generation resources currently under evaluation. New generation resources under evaluation consist of two separate wind generation projects that are anticipated to be completed in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The first project, if completed in 2005, is anticipated to have a total cost of approximately $424.0$200 million. The second project, if completed in 2006, is anticipated to have a total cost range of approximately $300 to $350 million. The proposed utility construction expenditures and new generation resource expenditures, if acquired, are anticipated to be funded with a combination of short-term debt, long-term debt and equity. Construction expenditure estimates, including the new generation resources, are subject to periodic review and adjustment in light of changing economic, regulatory, environmental and efficiency factors.

NEW GENERATION RESOURCES
In April 2004, PSE completed the purchase of a 49.85% interest in Frederickson 1, a gas-fired electric generating station located in western Washington. The purchase has added $80.8 million in 2004, which includes $80.0 million forutility plant and approximately 124 MW of electric generation capacity to serve PSE’s retail customers. PSE submitted a PCORC in October 2003 to the Washington Commission to recover the cost of the new generating resources subjectfacility and other power costs. The acquisition of Frederickson 1 was approved by the Washington Commission on April 7, 2004 and was also approved by FERC under the Federal Power Act on April 23, 2004.
In September and October 2004, PSE signed two non-binding letters of intent to regulatory approval.obtain a 100% ownership interest in both the proposed Wild Horse wind power project (Wild Horse project) and the Hopkins Ridge wind power project (Hopkins Ridge project). The proposed generating resource, if approvedprojects are located in 2004,central and eastern Washington State. The Wild Horse project is expected to have approximately 100 to 130 wind turbines and generate from 150 to 230 MW of power or 77 average MW, depending on the final design agreement. The Hopkins Ridge project is expected to generate approximately 150 MW of power or 52 average MW. Both projects will require final binding agreements between PSE and the developers. Such agreements are expected to be funded initially with short-term debt.executed in 2005.
OTHER ADDITIONS
Other property, plant and equipment additions were $15.5 million in 2004. Puget Energy expects InfrastruX’s capital additions to be $18.0 million in 2005. Construction expenditure estimates are subject to periodic review and adjustment in light of changing economic, regulatory, environmental and conservationefficiency factors.


NEW GENERATION RESOURCES
        In October 2003, PSE completed negotiations to purchase a 49.85% interest in a 275 MW (250 MW capacity with 25 MW planned capital improvements) gas-fired electric generating facility located within PSE’s service territory. The purchase will add approximately 137 MW of electric generation capacity to serve PSE’s retail customers. PSE submitted a power cost only rate case in October 2003 to the Washington Commission to recover the approximately $80 million cost of the new generating facility and other power costs. The power cost only rate case is expected to last approximately five months. Accordingly, the acquisition of the plant is subject to approval by the Washington Commission, and is expected by mid-April 2004. In addition, the acquisition will require approval from FERC. PSE filed its application in January 2004 with FERC and anticipates approval in early 2004.
        In addition, PSE has issued an RFP to acquire approximately 50 average MW of energy from wind power for its electric-resource portfolio. PSE issued an RFP in February 2004 for approximately 305 MW of thermal and other generation with proposals due back in March 2004.

OTHER ADDITIONS
        Other property, plant and equipment additions were $15.5 million in 2003. Puget Energy expects InfrastruX’s capital additions to be $16.2 million, $18.0 million and $20.0 million in 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively. Construction expenditure estimates are subject to periodic review and adjustment in light of changing economic, regulatory, environmental and conservation factors.

CAPITAL RESOURCES

CASH FROM OPERATIONS
Cash generated from operations totaled $323.0 million atfor the year ended December 31, 2003.2004 was $456.4 million. During thethat period, $87.2$92.3 million in cash was used for AFUDC and payment of dividends. Consequently, cash flows available for utility construction expenditures and other capital expenditures was $235.7were $364.1 million or 77.7%87.7% of the $303.5$415.4 million in construction expenditures (net of AFUDC)AFUDC and customer refundable contributions) and other capital expenditure requirements for the period.2004. For the same period in 2002,year ended December 31, 2003, cash generated from operations was $709.7$317.9 million, $99.3$90.0 million of which was used for AFUDC and payment of dividends. Therefore, cash flows available for utility construction expenditures and other capital expenditures at December 31, 2002 was $610.4 million.were $227.9 million, or 77.1% of the $295.7 million in construction expenditures (net of AFUDC and customer refundable contributions) and other capital expenditure requirements for 2003. The reduction inoverall cash generated from operationsoperating activities in 2004 increased $138.5 million compared to 2003. The increase was partially the result of increases in PGA rates in April 2003, was primarily due to refunds reducing the PGA balanceOctober 2003 and the reduction inOctober 2004, combined with lower cash received related to deferred tax items in 2002.
        During 2002, PSE received $121.0 million in excess of actual gas costs from customers throughpaid under the PGA mechanism compared to refunds to customers through the PGA mechanismfor liability balances in 2003 for a total positive cash flow of $71.8 million for 2003.$40.8 million. Cash from deferred income taxes decreased $93.8 million due primarily to federal income tax refunds and deferred tax credits in 2002 that did not occur in 2003. There wasoperating activities also a $21.4 million decrease in cash flows as a result of returning collateral to an energy trading counterparty in 2003 compared to a $21.4 million increase in cash flow from receiving the collateral in 2002. Cash from materials and supplies decreased $36.8 million due predominantly to higher gas injections in 2003 as compared to 2002 in order to increase gas storage levels. Cash used for accounts payable decreased $27.9increased $27.7 million due to fewer accrued incentives and operating-related costs athigher cash payments received from BPA than provided to customers under the end of 2003.residential exchange program compared to 2003 when PSE provided customers more cash than BPA paid to PSE. In 2003,addition, changes in deferred taxes contributed $15.2 million to positive cash flow. In 2004, PSE also fundeddid not fund the qualified pension plan in the amount ofcompared to funding $26.5 million


in 2003, which positively impacted cash flow from operating activities. Cash flow from operating activities also improved $27.7 million through recovery of collateral deposits in 2004 compared to no funding during 2002. Cash used for taxes payable increaseda return of collateral deposits in 2003 compared to 2002 by $31.7 million.

from energy supply counterparties.


FINANCING PROGRAM
Financing utility construction requirements and operational needs isare dependent upon the amount of internally generated funds and the cost and availability of external funds through capital markets and from financial institutions. Access to funds is dependent upon factors such as general economic conditions, regulatory authorizations and policies, and Puget Energy’s and PSE’s credit ratings.


RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
In determining the type and amount of future financing, PSE may be limited by restrictions contained in its electric and gas mortgage indentures, articles of incorporation and certain loan agreements. The goodwill impairment at Puget Energy does not cause any violations of financial covenants at Puget Energy or PSE. Under the most restrictive tests, at December 31, 2003,2004, PSE could issue:

approximately $927.9
·  approximately $281 million of additional first mortgage bonds under PSE’s electric mortgage indenture based on approximately $468 million of additional first mortgage bonds based upon approximately $1.5 billion of electric and gas bondable property available for use for issuance, subject to an interest coverage ratio limitation of 2.0 times net earnings available for interest, which PSE exceeded at December 31, 2004;
·  approximately $417 million of additional first mortgage bonds under PSE’s gas mortgage indenture based on approximately $695 million of gas bondable property available for issuance, subject to an interest coverage ratio limitation of 1.75 times net earnings available for interest, which PSE exceeded at December 31, 2004;
·  approximately $486.3 million of additional preferred stock at an assumed dividend rate of 6.625%; and
·  approximately $273.2 million of unsecured long-term debt.

At December 31, 2004, PSE had approximately $3.6 billion in electric and gas ratebase to support the interest coverage ratio limitation of 2.0 timestest for net earnings available for interest. PSE’s interest coverage ratio at December 31, 2003 was 2.9 times net earnings available for interest;
approximately $454.5 million of additional preferred stock at an assumed dividend rate of 7.25%; and
approximately $261.3 million of unsecured long-term debt.

CREDIT RATINGS

Neither Puget Energy nor PSE has had any rating downgrade triggers that would accelerate the maturity dates of outstanding debt. However, a downgrade in the companies’ credit ratings could adversely affect their ability to renew existing, or obtain access to new, credit facilities and could increase the cost of such facilities. For example, under PSE’s revolving credit facility, the spreads over the index and commitment fee increase as PSE’s secured long-term debt ratings decline. A downgrade in commercial paper ratings could preclude PSE’s ability to issue commercial paper under its current programs. The marketability of PSE commercial paper is currently limited by the A-3/P-2 ratings by Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service. In addition, downgrades in any or a combination of PSE’s debt ratings may allow counterparties on a contract by contract basis in the wholesale electric, wholesale gas and financial derivative markets to require PSE to post a letter of credit or other collateral, make cash prepayments, obtain a guarantee agreement or provide other mutually agreeable security.



The ratings of Puget Energy and PSE, as of March 8, 2004,February 23, 2005, were:


 Ratings
 Standard & Poor’sMoody’s
Puget Sound Energy
  
Corporate credit/issuer ratingBBB-Baa3
Senior secured debtBBBBaa2
Shelf debt senior securedBBB(P)Baa2
Trust preferred securitiesBBBalBa1
Preferred stockBBBa2
Commercial paperA-3P-2
Revolving credit facility*Baa3
Ratings outlookPositiveStable
Puget Energy
Corporate credit/issuer ratingBBB-Ba1

_______________________
*Standard & Poor’s does not rate credit facilities.

facilities.


SHELF REGISTRATIONS, LONG-TERM DEBT AND COMMON STOCK ACTIVITY
In January 2004, Puget Energy and PSE filed a shelf registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the offering, on a delayed or continuous basis, of up to $500 million principal amount of:

common stock of Puget Energy, and
·  common stock of Puget Energy, and
·  senior notes of PSE, secured by a pledge of PSE’s first mortgage bonds.
On July 15, 2004, PSE issued $200 million in floating rate senior notes under its existing $500 million shelf registration statement, reducing the available balance for issuance under the shelf registration statement to $300 million. The notes float at the three-month LIBOR rate plus 0.30%, (2.37% at December 31, 2004), mature on July 14, 2006, and can be redeemed at par any time after January 15, 2005. PSE used the net proceeds from the sale of PSE, secured by a pledgethe floating rate senior notes to repay outstanding amounts under its commercial paper and accounts receivable securitization programs, including amounts incurred to repay long-term debt, and also used the proceeds to redeem $55 million in principal of PSE’s first mortgage bonds.

        In March 2003, PSE refinanced $161.9bonds at a premium of 3.68% on August 14, 2004. It is anticipated that the $200 million in floating rate senior notes will be paid off with a combination of its Pollution Control Bonds to lower the weighted average interest rate from 6.77% to 5.01%. In June 2003, PSE issued $150 million principal amount of senior notes. The proceeds of $149.1 million were used to repay debt. In November 2003, Puget Energy sold an additional 4.55 million shares of common stock. The proceeds of $100.1 million were invested in PSE and mainly used to repaylong-term debt and redeem high-cost preferred stock. internally generated funds.


During 2003,2004, PSE redeemed the following long-term debt:


$49.8 million notes and junior subordinated debt of a subsidiary trust in February 2003 with interest rates ranging from 7.02% to 8.231%;
$20.0 million notes at an interest rate of 8.39% in March 2003;
·  $18.5 million medium term notes with interest rates ranging from 6.07% to 6.10%;
$60.0 million notes at interest rates ranging from 8.20% to 8.59% in May 2003;
·  $30.0 million medium term notes at an interest rate of 7.80% in May 2004;
$31.0 million notes at interest rates ranging from 6.23% to 7.19% in August 2003; and
·  $4.2 million conservation trust bonds at an interest rate of 6.45% during 2004;
$54.0 million notes at interest rates ranging from 6.20% to 6.40% in December 2003.
·  $55.0 million medium term notes at an interest rate of 7.35% in August 2004; and
·  $50.0 million medium term notes at an interest rate of 7.70% in December 2004.

LIQUIDITY FACILITIES AND COMMERCIAL PAPER
PSE’s short-term borrowings and sales of commercial paper are used to provide working capital and funding of utility construction programs.
In May 2004, PSE hasentered into a $250three-year, $350 million unsecured credit agreement with variousa group of banks which expires in June 2004 andreplaced its previous $250 million unsecured credit agreement. PSE also has a $150 million three-year receivables securitization program which expires in December 2005. The receivables available for sale under the securitization program may be less than $150 million depending on the outstanding amount of PSE’s receivables which fluctuate with the seasonality of energy sales to customers. At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE had available $250$350 million in the unsecured credit agreement and $39no amounts under its $150 million available from the receivablesreceivable securitization facility, (netboth of $111 million sold), which provide credit support for outstanding commercial paper and outstanding letters of credit. At December 31, 2003,2004, there werewas $0.5 million outstanding under a letter of credit and no outstanding amounts under its commercial paper program and $0.5 million under the letters of credit,outstanding, effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity under thethese liquidity facilities to $288.5$349.5 million.
        On
In May 27, 2003, Puget Energy2004, InfrastruX entered into a $15three-year, $150 million three-year credit agreement with a group of banks, replacing its previous $150 million credit agreement. Puget Energy is the guarantor of the line of credit. In addition, InfrastruX’s subsidiaries have an additional $36.7 million in lines of credit with various banks, for a total capacity for InfrastruX and its subsidiaries of $186.7 million under their line of credit agreements. Borrowings available for InfrastruX are used to fund acquisitions and working capital requirements of InfrastruX and its subsidiaries. At December 31, 2004, InfrastruX and its subsidiaries had $139.3 million outstanding under their credit agreements and letters of credit of $3.8 million, effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity under these lines of credit to $43.6 million.
Puget Energy has a $15 million credit agreement expiring in May 2006 with a bank. On February 1, 2005, Puget Energy reduced the borrowing capacity of this credit agreement to $5.0 million. Under the terms of the agreement, Puget Energy will paypays a floating interest rate on borrowings based on the LIBOR. The interest rate is set for one, two, or three-month periods at the option of Puget Energy with interest due at the end of each period. Puget Energy will also paypays a commitment fee on any unused portion of the credit facility. On May 30, 2003, Puget Energy borrowed $5had $5.0 million outstanding under the credit agreement. The proceeds of the loan were invested in InfrastruX, which used the proceeds to acquire a construction services company in New Mexico.
        In June 2001, InfrastruX signed a three-year credit agreement with several banks to provide up to $150 million in financing. Puget Energy is the guarantor of the line of credit. In addition, InfrastruX’s subsidiaries have an additional $34.7 million in lines of credit with various banks. Borrowings available for InfrastruX are used to fund acquisitions and working capital requirements of InfrastruX and its subsidiaries. Atat December 31, 2003, InfrastruX and its subsidiaries had outstanding loans of $150.9 million and letters of credit of $4.7 million, effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity under these lines of credit to $29.1 million.

2004.


STOCK PURCHASE AND DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN
Puget Energy has a Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan pursuant to which shareholders and other interested investors may invest cash and cash dividends in shares of Puget Energy’s common stock. Since new shares of common stock may be purchased directly from Puget Energy, funds received may be used for general corporate purposes. Puget Energy issued common stock from the Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan of $15.2 million (681,491 shares) in 2004 compared to $15.5 million (721,340 shares) in 2003 compared to $16.9 million (801,205 shares) in 2002.

2003. The proceeds from sales of stock under these plans are used for general corporate needs.


COMMON STOCK OFFERING PROGRAMS
To provide additional financing options, Puget Energy entered into agreements in July 2003 with two financial institutions under which Puget Energy may offer and sell shares of its common stock from time to time through these institutions as sales agents, or as principals. Sales of the common stock, if any, may be made by means of negotiated transactions or in transactions that may be deemed to be “at-the-market” offerings as defined in Rule 415 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, including in ordinary brokers’ transactions on the New York Stock Exchange at market prices. In October

OTHER

TENASKA DISALLOWANCE
The Washington Commission issued an order on May 13, 2004 determining that PSE did not prudently manage gas costs for the Tenaska electric generating plant and ordered PSE to adjust its PCA deferral account to reflect a disallowance of $25.6 million for the PCA 1 period (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003), which was recorded by PSE as a Purchased Electricity expense in the second quarter 2004. The order also established guidelines for future recovery of Tenaska costs. The amounts were determined to be a $25.6 million disallowance for the PCA 1 period and an estimated disallowance of $11.3 million for the PCA 3 period (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005), based upon applying the Washington Commission’s methodology of 50% disallowance on the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset due to projected costs exceeding the benchmark during the period. For the PCA 3 period, approximately $5.6 million was disallowed in the period July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, primarily as a reduction to Electric Operating Revenue. While the Washington Commission did not expressly address the disallowance for the PCA 2 period (July 1, 2003 Puget Energy sold 100,600 sharesthrough June 30, 2004), PSE estimated the disallowance for the PCA 2 period to be approximately $12.2 million if the Washington Commission were to follow the same methodology as they have ordered for the PCA 3 period. Therefore, PSE recorded a $12.2 million disallowance to Purchased Electricity expense in the second quarter 2004 for the 50% disallowance of common stock underthe return on the Tenaska regulatory asset in accordance with the Washington Commission’s methodology discussed in its program with Cantor Fitzgerald & Company. Puget Energy received approximately $2.3order of May 13, 2004 for a cumulative impact on earnings of $43.4 million in net proceeds2004 for the PCA 1, PCA 2 and PCA 3 periods. As a result of the disallowance recorded, the PCA customer deferral was expensed and a reserve was established for amounts not previously deferred under the PCA mechanism. The reserve balance as of December 31, 2004 was $3.2 million, which is expected to be utilized in 2005 as excess power costs are shared through the PCA mechanism.
PSE filed the PCA 2 period compliance filing in August 2004 and received an order from these sales.the Washington Commission on February 23, 2005. In the PCA 2 compliance order, the Washington Commission approved the Washington Commission staff’s recommendation for an additional return related to the Tenaska regulatory asset in the amount of $6.1 million related to the period July 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. Washington Commission staff’s recommendation was opposed by certain other parties. This amount alters the PCA deferral and is subject to reconsideration and appeal by other parties. Parties have 10 days from February 23, 2005 to file for reconsideration and 30 days to appeal the order. Once the statutory appeal process has concluded and the Washington Commission issues its final order, PSE will determine if recording a regulatory asset is appropriate.

In the May 13, 2004 order, the Washington Commission established guidelines and a benchmark to determine PSE’s recovery on the Tenaska regulatory asset starting with the PCA 3 period (July 1, 2004) through the expiration of the Tenaska contract in the year 2011. The benchmark is defined as the original cost of the Tenaska contract adjusted to reflect the 1.2% disallowance from a 1994 Prudence Order.
Below is a summary of the Tenaska disallowances by quarter through December 31, 2004:

 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
QUARTER ENDING
7/02 - 6/03
PCA 1
(ordered/final)
7/03 - 6/04
PCA 2
(estimated)
7/04 - 12/04
PCA 3
(estimated)
 
 
Total
June 30, 2004$  25.6$  12.2$    --$  37.8
September 30, 2004----2.8  2.8
December 31, 2004----2.8  2.8
Total$  25.6$  12.2$  5.6$  43.4

The Washington Commission guidelines for determining future recovery of the Tenaska costs (gas costs, recovery of the Tenaska regulatory asset and return on the Tenaska regulatory asset) are as follows:
1.  The Washington Commission will determine if PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent through the PCA compliance filings.
2.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent, and if PSE’s actual Tenaska costs fall at or below the benchmark, it will fully recover its Tenaska costs.
3.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent, but its actual Tenaska costs exceed the benchmark, PSE will only recover 50% of the lesser of:
a)  actual Tenaska costs that exceed the benchmark; or
b)  the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset.
4.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan or gas purchases are found to be imprudent in a future proceeding, PSE risks disallowance of any and all Tenaska costs.

The Washington Commission confirmed that if the Tenaska gas costs are deemed prudent, PSE will recover the full amount of actual gas costs and the recovery of the Tenaska regulatory asset even if the benchmark is exceeded. The projected costs and projected benchmark costs for Tenaska have been updated as of December 31, 2004 to reflect higher forward gas prices and are as follows:


 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
 
2005
 
 
2006
 
 
2007
 
 
2008
 
 
2009
 
 
2010
 
 
2011
 
Projected Tenaska costs * $194.5 $197.2 $189.0 $180.3 $170.3 $162.9 $170.0 
Projected Tenaska benchmark costs  159.7  167.9  175.2  182.2  189.5  197.2  213.8 
Over (under) benchmark costs $34.8 $29.3 $13.8 $(1.9)$(19.2)$(34.3)$(43.8)
                       
Projected 50% disallowance based on Washington Commission methodology 
$
10.5
 
$
8.8
 
$
5.8
 
$
1.6
 
$
--
 
$
--
 
$
--
 
_______________________
*Projection will change based on market conditions of gas and replacement power costs.



PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE WESTERN POWER MARKET
        While PSE cannot predict
The following discussion summarizes the outcome of anystatus as of the individualdate of this report of ongoing proceedings in which PSE is a party relating to the westernWestern power markets,markets. PSE generally is pleased that FERC appearsintends to be narrowing the issues under review in thevigorously defend against each of these cases pending before it. The narrowing of issues allows PSE to compare the allegations in the various proceedings with PSE’s relevant records and to better anticipate the likely outcome of each case. In the aggregate, PSE does not expect the ultimate resolution of these proceedings in the issues and cases discussed belowaggregate to have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR (CAISO) RECEIVABLE AND CALIFORNIA
        REFUND PROCEEDINGS

However, there can be no assurances in that regard because litigation is subject to numerous uncertainties and PSE operates withinis unable to predict the western wholesale market and made sales into the California energy market during the fourth quarterultimate outcome of 2000 through the CAISO. In August of 2000, San Diego Gas & Electric Company filed a complaint at FERC (Docket No. EL00-95) seeking price caps on energy sold into the CAISO and the California Power Exchange (PX) markets. The complaint also sought refunds of prices charged above any such caps put in place. In response to the complaint, after a number of ordersthese matters. Accordingly, there can be no guarantee that attempted to address the California energy crisis in a variety of manners, FERC issued an Order on June 19, 2001 that imposed caps on prices beginning the next day.
        On July 25, 2001, FERC ordered an evidentiary hearing in Docket No. EL00-95 to determine the amount of refunds due to California energy buyers, including the CAISO, for purchases madethese proceedings, either individually or in the spot markets operated by the CAISO during the period October 2, 2000 through June 20, 2001. On December 12, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge conducting the hearings issued his certification of proposed findings on California refund liability to FERC. The certification includes an appendix that reflects what the Administrative Law Judge labeled as “ballpark” estimates of amounts owed and owing. The certification also stated that the amounts owing should be adjusted for interest, a calculation the Administrative Law Judge did not make.
        The FERC staff issued a report in August 2002 (Docket No. PA02-2) that, among other things, recommended that FERC modify the methodology for calculating refunds in the California refund proceeding (Docket No. EL00-95) by adopting, as a proxy for the cost of natural


gas, producing basin spot prices plus transportation costs, instead of reported spot prices for natural gas at California delivery points. This methodology of calculating the cost of natural gas further reduced the amount owed by the CAISO to PSE for sales made during 2000 and 2001. The current net receivable recorded by PSE is $23.6 million. The CAISO receivable range including the effects of the CAISO refund and estimates of the gas price adjustment, including interest is between $23.6 million and $34.2 million.
        On November 20, 2002, FERC issued an Order on Motion for Discovery Order in Docket No. EL00-95 that granted a motion to allow parties to “adduce” additional evidence into the refund proceedings “that is either indicative or counter-indicative of market manipulation.” The order also authorized an appointment of an Administrative Law Judge as a discovery master, and permitted the parties to conduct discovery and file any such evidence with FERC. In their March 3, 2003 filing, the California parties reiterated their allegations of market manipulation against PSE and approximately 60 other companies. PSE and the other parties responded on March 20, 2003.
        On March 26, 2003, FERC issued an Order on Proposed Findings on Refund Liability in Docket No. EL00-95 that substantially adopted the recommendations that the Administrative Law Judge made on December 12, 2002, except that the Order also substantially adopted the FERC staff gas price recommendation made in its August 2002 report. On October 16, 2003, FERC issued an Order on Rehearing that largely left the refund calculation methodologies established by the March 26, 2003 Order unchanged. The Order on Rehearing gives the CAISO a deadline to perform its “cost re-runs” (which are expected to establish actual amounts owing and owed) of five months from October 16, 2003. In February 2004, however, FERC issued an order giving the CAISO an indefinite period of time to complete its cost re-runs, subject to the CAISO filing monthly reports of its progress and its expected completion dates. The CAISO’s current estimates are that it will be unable to complete the cost re-run process any earlier than August 2004. Until the CAISO completes its cost re-run process, little other activity can take place in the FERC docket.
        The March 26, 2003 Order on Proposed Findings on Refund Liability also permitted generators to make a filing to recover actual fuel costs that exceeded the calculated proxy price under the staff methodology. PSE made such a filing on May 12, 2003. The California parties objected to all fuel cost filings on May 21, 2003. The Order on Rehearing issued on October 16, 2003 postpones resolution of this issue, so PSE’s application for fuel cost recovery remains pending.
        The Order on Rehearing issued on October 16, 2003 also expressly adopted and approved a stipulation that confirmed that two PSE “non-spot-market” transactions were not subject to refund. The total gross revenue associated with the transactions is approximately $26.0 million. On October 17, 2003, PSE sent a demand letter to the CAISO seeking payment of the amount due. The CAISO responded to the letter with its own letter of November 14, 2003, expressing an unwillingness to take the issue up separately or in advance of its “cost re-run” activities. PSE has not yet formally responded to that letter.
        Because of the numerous orders FERC has issued in Docket No. EL00-95 over a period of more than three years, more than 80 appeals from the proceeding have already been lodged with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit’s usual practice has been to consolidate those appeals as they are filed, and hold the appellate proceedings in abeyance pending a final determination by FERC of the issues before it. PSE has no ability to predict how soon the Ninth Circuit may choose to take up these matters for consideration on their merits, but the California parties have attempted to initiate a more active review from time to time. It is likely that the caseaggregate, will not be finally resolved before formal appellate review.

CALIFORNIA RECEIVABLE
        In 2001, PG&Ematerially and Southern California Edison defaulted on payment obligations owed to various energy suppliers, including the CAISO and the California PX. The CAISO in turn defaulted on its payment obligations to PSE and various other energy suppliers. The California PX itself filed bankruptcy in 2001, further constrainingadversely affect PSE’s ability to receive payments due to controls placed on the California PX’s distribution of funds by the California PX bankruptcy court and due to the fact that the vast majority of funds owed directly to the CAISO are owed by the California PX. In addition, the California PX’s inverse condemnation action against the State of California may influence the delivery of funds to energy sellers such as PSE. PSE has a bad debt reserve and a transaction fee reserve applied to the CAISO receivables, such that the net receivable at December 31, 2003 was $23.6 million. On March 1, 2002, Southern California Edison paid its past due energy obligations to the CAISO, the California PX and various other parties; however, those funds were not used to pay the outstanding balance of the CAISO obligations to PSE.
        In summary, the developments in the California Refund Proceeding described in the above section have the likely effect of reducing PSE’s gross receivable balance due from the CAISO to an amount approximately equivalent to collecting payment on the two “non-spot-market” transactions removed from the Refund Proceeding. PSE is attempting early collection of proceeds associated with those sales while recognizing that the ultimate resolution of the Refund Proceeding may be more distant in the future. PSE anticipates that the netfinancial condition, results of the CAISO cost re-runs and the application of the refund calculations will extinguishoperations or offset the CAISO receivable apart from the balance associated with the two “non-spot-market” transactions. PSE is continuing to pursue recovery of the CAISO receivable.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REFUND PROCEEDINGliquidity.


        In October 2000, PSE filed a complaint at FERC (creating Docket No. EL01-10) against “all jurisdictional sellers” in the Pacific Northwest seeking prospective price caps consistent with any result FERC supplied for the California markets. FERC dismissed PSE’s complaint on December 15, 2000, although PSE filed for rehearing in January 2001. When FERC issued its June 19, 2001 Order in Docket No. EL00-95, imposing west-wide price constraints on energy sales, PSE moved to withdraw its rehearing request and its complaint in the EL01-10 Docket, on the basis that the relief PSE sought was fully provided. Various parties, including the Port of Seattle and the cities of Seattle and Tacoma, moved to intervene in the proceeding. They asserted the ability to adopt PSE’s complaint to obtain retroactive refunds for numerous transactions, including many that were not within the scope of the PSE complaint. The proceeding became commonly referenced as the “Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding,” despite the fact that the original complainant, PSE, did not seek retroactive refunds. A preliminary evidentiary hearing was held in September 2001, and an Administrative Law Judge recommendation against refunds followed. In December 2002, FERC issued an order permitting additional discovery and the submission of any additional evidence (parallel to the order issued in the California Refund Proceeding) that reopened the matter to permit parties to introduce any evidence they claimed to have of market


manipulation. A few parties made filings, asserting market manipulation in early March 2003, and numerous parties, including PSE, responded to those allegations in late March 2003. On June 25, 2003, FERC issued an order terminating the proceeding, largely on procedural, jurisdictional and equitable grounds. Various parties filed rehearing requests on July 25, 2003. On November 10, 2003, FERC denied the rehearing requests, and the matter has now been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. PSE has filed its own appeal, on the basis that it had an absolute right to withdraw the complaint before any other party intervened. The California parties also sought rehearing on one new issue decided in the November 10, 2003 order, which request was denied by FERC on February 9, 2004. It is expected that all appeals from this proceeding will be consolidated and resolved together.

ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE

1.  
California Receivable and California Refund Proceeding. In 2001, PG&E and Southern California Edison failed to pay the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and the California PX for energy purchases. The CAISO in turn failed to pay various energy suppliers, including PSE, for energy sales made by PSE into the California energy market during the fourth quarter 2000. Both PG&E and the California PX filed for bankruptcy in 2001, further constraining PSE’s ability to receive payments due to bankruptcy court controls placed on the distribution of funds by the California PX and the escrow of funds owed by PG&E for purchases during the fourth quarter 2000 are owed by the California PX.

        On June 25, 2003, FERC issued two show cause orders pertaining to its western market investigations that commenced individual proceedings against many sellers. One show cause proceeding seeks to investigate approximately 26 entities that allegedly had potential “partnerships” with Enron. PSE was not named in that show cause order, and in an order dismissing many of the already-named respondents in the “partnerships” proceedings on January 22, 2004, FERC stated that they had determined not to proceed further against other parties. Accordingly, PSE does not expect to be named in the case.
a.  
California Refund Proceeding. On July 25, 2001, FERC ordered an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. EL00-95) to determine the amount of refunds due to California energy buyers for purchases made in the spot markets operated by the CAISO and the California PX during the period October 2, 2000 through June 20, 2001 (refund period). The CAISO continues its efforts to prepare revised settlement statements based on newly recalculated costs and charges for spot market sales to California during the refund period and currently estimates that it will determine “who owes what to whom” in early 2005. On September 2, 2004, FERC issued an order selecting Ernst & Young LLP as the independent auditor of fuel cost allowance claims made by sellers, including PSE. A review of that claim is pending, awaiting further guidance from FERC.
  Many of the numerous orders that FERC issued in Docket No. EL00-95 are on appeal and have been consolidated before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as a result of a case management conference conducted on September 21, 2004. FERC filed the record on November 22, 2004. The Ninth Circuit ordered on October 22, 2004 that briefing proceed in two rounds. The first round is limited to three issues: (1) which parties are subject to FERC’s refund jurisdiction in light of the exemption for government-owned utilities in section 201(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA); (2) the temporal scope of refunds under section 206 of the FPA; (3) which categories of transactions are subject to refunds.
  Procedures will be established for the remaining issues, if necessary, after the court’s disposition of the first round of issues. Following a second case management conference on November 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit consolidated certain petitions for review for briefing of the first round of issues to be completed by March 1, 2005 and set oral argument hearings for April 12 and 13, 2005. Opening briefs were filed on December 29, 2004. PSE joined the brief of the Competitive Supplier Group, which argued that FERC has proposed to require payment of refunds without proper notice to sellers, without proper limits on the type of transactions affected and without a finding that the transactions subject to refund in fact produced prices that were just and reasonable. Respondents’ briefs in support of FERC were due February 9, 2005.
b.  
CAISO Receivable. PSE has a bad debt reserve and a transaction fee reserve applied to the CAISO receivable, such that PSE’s net receivable from the CAISO as of December 31, 2004 is approximately $21.3 million. PSE estimates the range for the receivable to be between $21.3 million and $22.4 million, which includes estimated credits for fuel and power purchase costs and interest. In its October 16, 2003 Order on Rehearing in this docket, FERC expressly adopted and approved a stipulation that confirmed that two of PSE’s “non-spot market” transactions are not subject to mitigation in the Refund Proceeding. On October 17, 2003, PSE formally presented CAISO with a request that payment be made on these amounts. The CAISO responded to the letter on November 13, 2003, expressing an unwillingness to take the issue up separately or in advance of its cost re-run activities. PSE continues to pursue the issue in filings through FERC processes.
  On May 6, 2004, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power filed a motion at FERC in Docket No. EL00-95 requesting that FERC issue an order permitting monies to be disbursed from the California PX Settlement Clearing Account and an escrow account be established as part of PG&E’s bankruptcy proceeding. The bulk of the monies owed by the CAISO, including the monies owed to PSE, are held in those two accounts. PSE filed an answer in support of the motion on May 21, 2004, and awaits an order from FERC.
2.  
Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding.In October 2000, PSE filed a complaint at FERC (Docket No. EL01-10) against “all jurisdictional sellers” in the Pacific Northwest seeking prospective price caps consistent with any result FERC supplied for the California markets. FERC dismissed PSE’s complaint on December 15, 2000, although PSE filed for rehearing in January 2001. When FERC issued its June 19, 2001 order in Docket No. EL00-95, imposing west-wide price constraints on energy sales, PSE moved to withdraw its rehearing request and its complaint in Docket No. EL01-10, on the basis that the relief PSE sought was fully provided. Various parties, including the Port of Seattle and the cities of Seattle and Tacoma, moved to intervene in the proceeding. They asserted the ability to adopt PSE’s complaint to obtain retroactive refunds for numerous transactions, including many that were not within the scope of the PSE complaint. The proceeding became commonly referenced as the “Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding,” despite the fact that the original complainant, PSE, did not seek retroactive refunds. A preliminary evidentiary hearing was held in September 2001, and an Administrative Law Judge recommendation against refunds followed. In December 2002, FERC issued an order permitting additional discovery and the submission of any additional evidence (parallel to the order issued in the California Refund Proceeding) that reopened the matter to permit parties to introduce any evidence they claimed to have of market manipulation. A few parties made filings, asserting market manipulation in early March 2003, and numerous parties, including PSE, responded to those allegations in late March 2003. On June 25, 2003, FERC issued an order terminating the proceeding, largely on procedural, jurisdictional and equitable grounds. Various parties filed rehearing requests on July 25, 2003. On November 10, 2003, FERC affirmed an order terminating the Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding, (Docket No. EL01-10), largely on procedural, jurisdictional and equitable grounds. Seven petitions for review, including PSE’s, are now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Opening briefs were filed on January 14, 2005. PSE’s opening brief addressed procedural flaws underlying the action of FERC. Specifically, PSE argued that because PSE’s complaint in the underlying docket was withdrawn as a matter of law on July 9, 2001, FERC erred in relying on it to serve as the basis to initiate a “preliminary” investigation into whether refunds for individually negotiated bilateral transactions in the Pacific Northwest were appropriate. Briefing is expected to be completed in the first half of 2005.

3.  
Orders to Show Cause. On June 25, 2003, FERC issued two show cause orders pertaining to its western market investigations that commenced individual proceedings against many sellers. One show cause order (Docket Nos. EL03-180, et seq.) sought to investigate approximately 26 entities that allegedly had potential “partnerships” with Enron. PSE was not named in that show cause order. In an order dismissing many of the already-named respondents in the “partnerships” proceeding on January 22, 2004, FERC stated that it did not intend to proceed further against other parties.
The second show cause proceeding investigatedorder (Docket Nos. EL03-137, et seq.) named PSE (Docket No. EL03-169) and approximately 5554 other entities that allegedly had engaged in potential “gaming” practices in the CAISO and California PX markets. PSE is one of the entities named in the “gaming” show cause order (Docket No. EL03-169). On July 16, 2003, CAISO provided data to FERC in connection with the “gaming” show cause order that indicated that, under the standards adopted by FERC in the June 25, 2003 orders, CAISO’s previously reported claims against PSE as to “ricochet” transactions completely disappear. Consistent with the show cause orders’ invitation to attempt settlement, PSE and FERC staff filed a proposed settlement of all issues pending against PSE in those proceedings on August 28, 2003. The proposed settlement, which admits no wrongdoing on the part of PSE, but would result in thea payment of $17,092 to settle all claims. FERC approved the settlement on January 22, 2004. The California parties and a few others filed oppositions to PSE’s settlement (and all others) on September 30, 2003. PSE replied to those arguments on October 20, 2003. The presiding Administrative Law Judge certified and recommended the PSE settlement to FERC on November 18, 2003. In January 2004, FERC issued an Order Approving Contested Settlement Agreement that finds PSE’s settlement to be in the public interest. On February 23, 2004, motions for rehearing wereof that order, repeating arguments that had already been addressed by FERC. On March 17, 2004, PSE filed by the Port of Seattle and the California parties (the California Attorney General, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, PG&E and Southern California Edison). PSE continues to believe that the orders to show cause do not raise new issues or concerns nor will they have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

ANOMALOUS BIDDING INVESTIGATION
        On June 25, 2003, FERC issued an order commencing a new investigatory proceeding, Docket No. IN03-10, to be conducted through its Office of Market Oversight and Investigations (OMOI). That docket is to review each seller’s bids into the CAISO or California PX markets that exceeded $250/MWh during the period of May 1, 2000 to October 1, 2000. The OMOI is to determine if each such entity’s bids show a pattern or an effort to manipulate the market, and if they do, to consider whether the entity should be required to disgorge any improper profits earned as a result of such patterns or efforts. PSE received a data request from the OMOI in this proceeding about its bids and responded on July 24, 2003. PSE has not received further information requests since responding. There is no established timetable for this proceeding, but FERC has indicated that it expects to work diligently to review the practices of each seller and to resolve the matter expeditiously. PSE does not expect any material adverse impacts on the financial condition of the Company from this FERC investigation.

PORT OF SEATTLE SUIT
        On May 21, 2003, the Port of Seattle commenced suit in federal court in Seattle, Washington against 22 energy sellers into the California market, alleging that the conduct of those sellers during 2000 and 2001 constituted market manipulation, violated antitrust laws and damaged the Port of Seattle, which had a contract to purchase its complete energy supply from PSE at the time. The Port’s contract with PSE linked the price of the energy sold to the Port to an index price for energy sold at wholesale at the Mid-Columbia trading hub. The Port alleged that the Mid-Columbia price was intentionally affected improperly by the defendants, including PSE. PSE moved to dismiss this case; other defendants moved to transfer the matter to a multi-district litigation panel in California. A conditional transfer order was issued in July 2003. After further proceedings before the judicial panel on multi-district litigation, an order transferring the case to the Southern District of California was entered on December 15, 2003. PSE’s motion to dismiss remains pendingthe California parties’ rehearing request, and is scheduled to be heardawaits FERC action on March 26, 2004 in San Diego, California. PSE does not expect any material adverse impacts on the financial condition of the Company from this matter.that motion.


4.  
Port of Seattle Suit. On May 21, 2003, the Port of Seattle commenced suit in federal court in Seattle against 22 energy sellers, alleging that their conduct during 2000 and 2001 constituted market manipulation, violated antitrust laws and damaged the Port of Seattle. The Port had a contract to purchase its energy supply from PSE at the time. The Port’s contract linked the price of the energy sold to the Port to an index price for energy sold at wholesale at the Mid-Columbia trading hub. The Port alleged that the Mid-Columbia price was inten-tionally affected improperly by the defendants, including PSE, and alleges damages of over $30 million. On May 12, 2004, the district court dismissed the lawsuit. The Port of Seattle filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on September 13, 2004, filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit arguing that the district court erred in dismissing its claims. Responses to the Port’s brief were filed November 2, 2004. The parties await oral argument to be scheduled.

5.  
Wah Chang v. Avista Corp., PSE and others.In June 2004, Puget Energy and PSE were served a federal summons and complaint by Wah Chang, an Oregon company. Wah Chang claims that during 1998 through 2001 the Company and other energy companies (and in a separate complaint, energy marketers) engaged in various fraudulent and illegal activities including the transmittal of electronic wire communications to transmit false or misleading information to manipulate the California energy market. The claims include submitting false information such as energy schedules and bids to the California PX, CAISO, electronic trading platforms and publishers of energy indexes, alleges damages of not less than $30 million and seeks treble and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The complaint is similar to the allegations made by the Port of Seattle currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation consolidated this case with another pending Multi District case and transferred it to Federal District Court in San Diego on August 20, 2004. The defendants in both cases filed motions to dismiss on October 25, 2004. Wah Chang opposed the motions to dismiss, and replies in support of the motions to dismiss were filed on January 12, 2005. On February 11, 2005, approximately three weeks after hearing oral argument, the Court dismissed both cases on the grounds that FERC has the exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims and the filed rate doctrine and Federal preemption barred the court from hearing the plaintiff’s claims.

6.  
California Litigation.Attorney General Cases.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL CASES
On May 31, 2002, FERC conditionally dismissed a complaint filed on March 20, 2002 by the California Attorney General in Docket No. EL02-71 that alleged violations of the FPA by FERC and all sellers (including PSE) of electric power and energy into California. The complaint asserted that FERC’s adoption and implementation of market rate authority was flawed and, as a result, individual sellers such as PSE were liable for sales of energy at rates that were “unjust and unreasonable.” The condition for dismissal was that all sellers refile transaction summaries of sales to (and, after a clarifying order issued on June 28, 2001, purchases from) certain California entities during 2000 and 2001. PSE refiled such transaction summaries on July 1 and July 8, 2002. The order of dismissal went on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision on the California Attorney General’s challenge to the validity of FERC’s market-based rate system (
Lockyer v. FERC). This case was originally presented to FERC. The Ninth Circuit upheld FERC’s authority to authorize sales of electric energy at market based rates, but found the requirement that all sales at market-based rates be contained in quarterly reports filed with FERC to be integral to a market-based rate tariff. The California parties, among others, have interpreted the decision as providing authority to FERC to order refunds for different time frames and based on different rationales than are currently pending in the California Refund Proceedings, discussed above in “California Refund Proceeding.” The decision itself defers the question of whether to seek refunds to FERC. PSE, along with other defendants in the proceeding, sought rehearing of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on October 25, 2004. The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue an order on the rehearing request. Because the current Ninth Circuit decision may open new periods of transactions to refund claims under new theories, PSE cannot predict the scope, nature or ultimate resolution of this case. That additional uncertainty may make the outcomes of certain other western energy market cases less predictable than previously anticipated.

In addition, the day after the initial FERC decision in theLockyer case, the California Attorney General filed similar claims in Docket No. EL02-71state court in California, including one suit against PSE. These complaints alleged that alleged violations of the FPA by FERC and all sellers (including PSE) of electric power and energy into California. The complaint asserted that FERC’s adoption and implementation of market rate authority was flawed and, as a result, individual sellers such as PSE were liable for sales of energy at rates that were “unjust and unreasonable.” The condition for dismissal was that all sellers refile transaction summaries of sales to (and, after a clarifying order issued on June 28, 2001, purchases from) certain California entities during 2000 and 2001. PSE refiled such transaction summaries on July 1 and July 8, 2002. The order of dismissal is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
        On the same day as FERC’s order of dismissalwholesale seller defendants in Docket No. EL02-71 was entered, the California Attorney General announced it had filed individual complaints against a number of sellers, including PSE,energy market engaged in California Superior Courtanti-competitive behavior in San Francisco. That complaint alleged that PSE’s sales to California violated the requirements of the FPA and that, as such, the sales also violated certain sectionsviolation of the California Business Practices Act forbidding unlawful business practices. for sales in the California energy market (
Lockyer v. Transalta).The complaint asserted that each such “violation” subjects PSE to a fine of up to $2,500 plus an award of attorneys’ fees and asserts that there were “thousands” of such violations. PSEThose cases were removed that suit to federal court and


moved to dismiss it on the grounds that the issues are within the exclusive or primary jurisdiction of FERC. dismissed. On March 25, 2003, the court granted the motion for dismissal. The order of dismissal is now on appeal toOctober 12, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the dismissal of all 13 complaints filed by the California Attorney General, including a complaint against PSE. The Ninth Circuit decision concluded that the opinions inPeople of the State of California ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. Dynegy, et al. andPublic Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., decided earlier this year by the Ninth Circuit, controlled the outcome of the matters and warranted dismissal. Because no party sought rehearing or filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals. PSE does not expect any material adverse impacts on the financial conditionUnited States, the Ninth Circuit’s order is the final determination of the Company from these matters.

this matter.

California Class Actions. CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTIONS
        DuringIn May 2002, PSE was served with two cross-complaints, by Reliant Energy Services and Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, respectively, in six consolidated class actions pendingfiled in Superior Court in San Diego, California. The original complaints in the action, which were brought by or on behalf of electricity purchasers in California, allege that the original (approximately 40) defendants manipulated the wholesale electricity markets in violation of various California Business Practices Act or Cartwright Act (antitrust) provisions. The plaintiffsPlaintiffs in the lawsuit seek, among other things, restitution of all funds acquired by means that violate the law and payment of treble damages, interest and penalties. The cross-complaints assertasserted essentially that the cross-defendants, including PSE, were also participants in the California energy market in California at the relevant times, and that any remedies ordered against some market participants should be ordered against all. Reliant Energy Services and Duke Energy Trading & Marketing also seek indemnityindemnification and conditional relief as a buyerbuyers in transactions involving cross-defendants should the plaintiffs prevail. Those cross-complaints added over 30 new defendants, including PSE,The case was removed to litigation that had been pending since 2000federal court and had been set for trial in state court. Somesome of the newly added defendants, removed the litigation to federal court. The federal court in San Diego remanded the case to the California state court in an order issued in December 2002.including PSE, and numerous other defendants added by the cross-complaints have moved to dismiss these claims. Those motions were argued on September 19,the action. In December 2002, but the federal judgedistrict court remanded the proceeding to state court, an action which Duke and Reliant later appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal stayed further action in the state court proceeding pending the outcome of the appeal. The cross-complaints and the addition of the 40 new defendants raised issues of foreign sovereign immunity, jurisdiction and indemnity in the case, all of which are now part of the appeal. In June 2003, PSE and other defendants filed motions to respond to the indemnity issues. On May 13, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting PSE status as a cross-appellant but did not rulepermit PSE to participate in the oral argument heard on those motions in his order remandingJune 14, 2004. On December 8, 2004, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court. The remand order is now being reconsidered. PSE and the other defendantsPowerex filed a petition for rehearing which argues that movedalthough not immune from suit, as a government entity it should be allowed to dismiss the claims intend to submit their motion to the appropriate court at the earliest practical date. As a resultlitigate in federal, not state court. Powerex’s petition for rehearing stays issuance of the various motions, no trial date is set at this time. PSE does not expectmandate to remand pending the ultimate resolutionoutcome of these matters to have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.its rehearing request.


CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
AND ESTIMATES
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles requires that management apply accounting policies and make estimates and assumptions that affect results of operations and the reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the financial statements. The following areasaccounting policies represent those that management believes are particularly important to the financial statements and that require the use of estimates, assumptions and assumptionsjudgment to describe matters that are inherently uncertain.


REVENUE RECOGNITION
Utility revenue isrevenues are recognized when the basis of service is rendered, includingwhich includes estimates used for unbilled revenue.to determine amounts relating to services rendered but not billed. Unbilled kWh areelectricity revenue is determined by taking kWhMWh generated and purchased less billed kWh and estimated system losses.losses and billed MWh plus unbilled MWh balance at the last true-up date. The estimated system losses areloss percentage for electricity is determined by reviewing historical billed kWhMWh to generated and purchased kWh. This amountMWh. The estimated unbilled MWh balance is then multiplied by the estimated average revenue per kWh.MWh. Unbilled gas revenue is determined by taking therms delivered to PSE less estimated system losses, prior month unbilled therms and billed therms. The estimated system loss percentage for gas is determined by reviewing historical billed therms to therms delivered to customers. The estimated current month unbilled therms is then multiplied by estimated average rate schedule revenue per therm. Non-utility revenue is recognized when services are performed, upon the sale of assets, or on a percentage of completion basis for fixed-price contracts. The recognition of revenue is in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of revenue.

The following table represents the sensitivity of the estimate of system losses for both electricity and gas in calculating unbilled revenues assuming an additional 0.1% increase in the estimated system loss factor since the last annual true-up:

 
GAS REVENUE
DECREASE (MILLIONS)
ELECTRIC REVENUE
DECREASE (MILLIONS)
0.1% increase in loss factor$0.4$0.6

REGULATORY ACCOUNTING
        Puget Energy’s
As a regulated subsidiary,entity of the Washington Commission and FERC, PSE prepares its financial statements in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation,Regulation.and in conformity with FERC’s uniform systemThe application of accounts. The Washington Commission also requires PSE to use FERC’s uniform system of accounts. The reason PSE prepares its financial statements in accordance with SFAS No. 71 is that its ratesresults in differences in the timing and tariffs are regulated by the Washington Commissionrecognition of certain revenues and FERC.expenses in comparison with businesses in other industries. The rates that are charged by PSE to its customers are based uponon cost base regulation reviewed and approved by these regulatory commissions.the Washington Commission and FERC. Under the authority of these commissions, PSE has recorded certain regulatory assets and liabilities at December 31, 2004 in the amount of $461.8$645.3 million and $406.1$185.7 million, asrespectively, and regulatory assets and liabilities of $610.5 million and $176.7 million, respectively, at December 31, 20032003.. PSE expects to fully recover these regulatory assets and 2002, respectively.liabilities through its rates. If future recovery of costs ceases to be probable, PSE would be required to write off these regulatory assets and liabilities. In addition, if at some point in the future Puget EnergyPSE determines that it no longer meets the criteria for continued application of SFAS No. 71, with respect to PSE Puget Energy could be required to write off its regulatory assets and liabilities.
Also encompassed by regulatory accounting and subject to SFAS No. 71 are the PCA and PGA mechanisms. The PCA and PGA mechanisms mitigate the impact of commodity price volatility upon the Company, and are approved by the Washington Commission. The PCA mechanism provides for a sharing of costs and benefits that are graduated over four levels of power cost variances with an overall cap of $40 million (+/-) plus 1% of the excess over the $40 million cap over the four-year period ending June 30, 2006. The PCA mechanism will continue after July 1, 2006, within certain sharing bands. See Item 1 - Business - Regulation and Rates - Electric Regulation and Rates for further discussion regarding the PCA mechanism. The PGA mechanism passes through to customers increases and decreases in the cost of natural gas supply. PSE expects to fully recover these regulatory assets through its rates. However, both mechanisms are subject to regulatory review and approval by the Washington Commission on a periodic basis.

DERIVATIVES

DERIVATIVES

Puget Energy uses derivative financial instruments primarily to manage its energy commodity price risks.risks, and may enter into certain financial derivatives to manage interest rate risk. Derivative financial instruments are accounted for under SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended by SFAS No. 138 and SFAS No. 149. Accounting for derivatives continues to evolve through guidance issued by the Derivatives Implementation Group (DIG) of the Financial Accounting Standards Board.Board (FASB). To the extent that changes by the DIG modify current guidance, including the normal purchases and normal sales determination, the accounting treatment for derivatives may change.
To manage its electric and gas portfolios, Puget Energy enters into contracts to purchase or sell electricity and gas. These contracts are considered derivatives under SFAS No. 133 unless a determination is made that they qualify for normal purchases and normal sales exclusion.exception. If the exclusionexception applies, those contracts are not marked-to-market and are not reflected in the financial statements until delivery occurs.
The availability of the normal purchases and normal sales exclusionexception to specific contracts is based on a determination that a resource is available for a forward sale and similarly a determination that at certain times existing resources will be insufficient to serve load. This determination is based on internal models that forecast customer demand and generation supply. The models include assumptions regarding customer load growth rates, which are influenced by the economy, weather, and the impact of customer choice and resource availability. The critical assumptions used in the determination of the normal purchases and normal sales exception are consistent with assumptions used in the general planning process.
Energy and financial contracts that are considered derivatives may be eligible for designation as cash flow hedges. If a contract is designated as a cash


flow hedge, the change in its market value is generally deferred as a component of other comprehensive income until the transaction it is hedging is completed. Conversely, the change in the market value of derivatives not designated as cash flow hedges is recorded in current period earnings.

PSE values derivative instruments based on daily quoted prices from numerous independent energy brokerage services. When external quoted market prices are not available for derivative contracts, PSE uses a valuation model whichthat uses volatility assumptions relating to future energy prices based on specific energy markets and utilizes externally available forward market price curves.

All derivative instruments are sensitive to market price fluctuations that can occur on a daily basis.


PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
Puget Energy has a qualified defined benefit pension plan covering substantially all employees of PSE. For 2004, 2003 and 2002, qualified pension income of $8.0 million, $12.9 million and $17.7 million, respectively, was recorded in the financial statements. Of these amounts, approximately 63.3%, 67.0% and 66.8% offset utility operations and maintenance expense in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively, and the remaining amounts were capitalized.
PSE’s pension and other postretirement benefits income or costs are dependent on several factors and assumptions, including design of the plan, timing and amount of cash contributions to the plan, earnings on plan assets, discount rate, expected long-term rate of return and health care cost trends. Changes in any of these factors or assumptions will affect the amount of income or expense that Puget Energy records in its financial statements in future years and also its projected benefit obligation.
The follow table reflects the estimated sensitivity associated with a change in certain actuarial assumptions (each assumption change is presented mutually exclusive of other assumption changes):

  
 
CHANGE IN
ASSUMPTION
 
IMPACT ON PROJECTED
BENEFIT OBLIGATION
INCREASE (DECREASE)
 
IMPACT ON 2004 PENSION
INCOME
INCREASE (DECREASE)
 
 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
   
PENSION
BENEFITS
 
OTHER
BENEFITS
 
PENSION
BENEFITS
 
OTHER
BENEFITS
 
Increase in discount rate 
     50 basis points
$(20,548)$(3,635)$1,261 $354 
Decrease in discount rate 
     50 basis points
 22,595  3,891  (48) (377)
Increase in return of plan assets 
     50 basis points
 *  *  2,370  71 
Decrease in return on plan assets 
     50 basis points
 *  *  (2,370) (71)
________________________
* Calculation not applicable.

Qualified pension income is expected to decline to $2.5 million in 2005 as a result of lower actual returns on pension assets during the last three years and declining expected rates of return on pension fund assets. During 2004, PSE made no cash contributions to the qualified defined benefit plan and expects to make no contributions in 2005.

GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLES (PUGET ENERGY ONLY)
On January 1, 2002, SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” became effective and as a result Puget Energy ceased amortization of goodwill. During 2001, Puget Energy recorded approximately $2.8 million of goodwill amortization. Puget Energy performs an annual impairment review to determine if any impairment exists. In performing the goodwill impairment test, Puget Energy compares the present value of the future cash flows of estimated earnings of InfrastruX withwhich reflects prospective market price information from prospective buyers to the adjusted carrying value of recorded equity. If goodwill is determined to have an impairment, Puget Energy will record in the period of determination an impairment charge to earnings.
Intangibles with finite lives are amortized based on the expected pattern of use or on a straight-line basis over the expected periods to be benefited. The goodwill and intangibles recorded on the balance sheet of Puget Energy are the result of acquisition of companies by InfrastruX.

DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN
During 2004, Puget Energy hasrecorded a qualified defined benefit pension plan covering substantially all employeesnon-cash goodwill impairment charge of PSE. For 2003, 2002$91.2 million, or $76.6 million after-tax and 2001 qualified pension income of $12.9 million, $17.7 million and $20.0 million, respectively,minority interest. As a result, the goodwill balance at December 31, 2004 was recorded in the financial statements. Of these amounts, approximately 67.0%, 66.8% and 58.0% offset utility operations and maintenance expense in 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively,$43.5 million. Intangible assets have not been impaired and the remaining amounts were capitalized. Changes in market values of stocks or interest rates will affect the amount of income that Puget Energy can record in its financial statements in future years. Qualified pension income is expected to decline to $8.6 million inbalance at December 31, 2004 as a result of lower actual returns on pension assets during the last three years and declining expected rates of return on pension fund assets. During 2003, PSE made a cash contribution to the qualified defined benefit plan of $26.5 million and is not expected to make a cash contribution to this qualified plan in 2004.

was $16.7 million.


STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
        The Company has various stock-based compensation plans which prior to 2003 were accounted for according to APB No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related interpretations as allowed by SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” In 2003, the Company adopted the fair value based accounting of SFAS No. 123 using the prospective method under the guidance of SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure.” The Company will apply SFAS No. 123 accounting prospectively to stock compensation awards granted in 2003 and future years, while grants that were made in years prior to 2003 will continue to be accounted for using the intrinsic value method of APB No. 25.

CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR RESERVE

PSE operates within the western wholesale market and has made sales into the California energy market. At December 31, 2000, PSE’s receivables from the CAISO and other counterparties, net of reserves, were $41.8 million. PSE received the majority of the partial payments for sales made in the fourth quarter of 2000 in the first quarter of 2001 and has since received a small amount of payments. At December 31, 2003,2004, such receivables, net of reserves, were approximately $23.6$21.3 million.
During 2003, FERC issued an order in the California Refund Proceeding adopting in part and modifying in part FERC’s earlier findings by the Administrative Law Judge. Based uponon the order, PSE has determined that the receivables balance at December 31, 20032004 is collectible from the CAISO. See “Proceedings

NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment” (SFAS No. 123R), which revises SFAS No. 123, “Accounting For Stock-Based Compensation.” SFAS No. 123R requires companies that issue share-based payment awards to employees for goods or services to recognize as compensation expense, the fair value of the expected vested portion of the award as of the grant date over the vesting period of the award. Forfeitures that occur before the award vesting date will be adjusted from the total compensation expense, but once the award vests, no adjustment to compensation expense will be allowed for forfeitures or unexercised awards. In addition, SFAS No. 123R would require recognition of compensation expense of all existing outstanding awards that are not fully vested for their remaining vesting period as of the effective date that were not accounted for under a fair value method of accounting at the time of their award. SFAS No. 123R is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The Company is currently evaluating what impact the application of SFAS No. 123R will have on its operations. The Company had adopted the fair value provisions of SFAS No. 123 “Accounting for Stock Based Compensation” in January 2003.
In December 2004, FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 109-1, “Application of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, to the Tax Deduction on Qualified Production Activities Provided by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004” (FSP No. 109-1). FSP No. 109-1 states that the staff position related to deductions as a result of the American Jobs Creation Act (the Act) should be treated as a “special deduction”, as described in SFAS No. 109, “Accounting For Income Taxes” and therefore has no effect on deferred tax assets or liabilities existing at the enactment date. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of FSP No. 109-1 (which was effective upon issuance) and any deduction available under the Act. Any deduction available, if determined, is applicable to the Company’s 2005 tax year.
On May 19, 2004, FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) No. 106-2 “Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003” as the Western Power Market” under Management’s Discussionresult of the new Medicare Prescription Drug and AnalysisModernization Act which was signed into law in December 2003. The law provides a subsidy for plan sponsors that provide prescription drug benefits to Medicare beneficiaries that are equivalent to the Medicare Part D plan. Based on an actuarial assessment, PSE will not be eligible for such subsidies, thus FSP No. 106-2 will have no impact on PSE’s retiree medical plans.
The Emerging Issues Task Force of the Financial ConditionAccounting Standards Board (EITF) at its July 2003 meeting came to a consensus concerning EITF Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and ResultsLosses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB Statement No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03.” The consensus reached was that determining whether realized gains and losses on physically settled derivative contracts not held for trading purposes are reported in the income statement on a gross or net basis is a matter of Operationsjudgment that depends on the relevant facts and circumstances. Based on the guidance by EITF No. 03-11, the Company determined that its non-trading derivative instruments should be reported net and implemented this treatment effective January 1, 2004. As a result of the implementation, Electric Revenue and Purchased Electricity Expense both decreased $108.7 million in 2003 and $77.1 million in 2002, respectively, with no impact on financial position or net income.
In March 2004, the EITF came to a consensus concerning EITF Issue No. 03-16, “Accounting for further discussion.

NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
Investments in Limited Liability Companies.” The consensus reached was that an investment in a limited liability company should be accounted for using the equity method for investments greater than 3% to 5%. The adoption of EITF No. 03-16 is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2004, with any adjustments being accounted for as a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle. The Company reviewed its investments and determined one investment held by PSE met the criteria established in EITF No. 03-16.

In May 2003, FASB issued SFAS No. 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity.” SFAS No. 150 establishes the requirements for classifying and measuring as liabilities certain financial instruments that embody obligations to redeem the financial instruments by the issuer. The adoption of SFAS No. 150 is effective with the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. However, on November 5, 2003 FASB deferred for an indefinite period certain mandatorily redeemable noncontrolling interests associated with finite-lived subsidiaries. The Company does not have any noncontrolling interest in finite-lived subsidiaries and therefore is not affected by the deferral. Prior periods will not be restated for the new presentation.
SFAS No. 150 requires the Company to classify its mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as liabilities. As a result, the corresponding dividends on the mandatorily redeemable preferred stock are classified as interest expense on the income statement with no impact on net income.
In January 2003, FINFASB issued Interpretation No. 46, which was“Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (FIN 46), as further revised in December 2003 with FIN 46R, clarifiedwhich clarifies the application of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, “Consolidated Financial Statements,” to certain entities in which equity investors do not have a controlling interest or sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional financial support. FIN 46R requires that if a business entity has a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity, the financial statements must be included in the consolidated financial statements of the business entity. The adoption of FIN 46R for all interests in variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003 iswas effective immediately. For variable interest entities created before February 1, 2003, it iswas effective July 1, 2003. The adoption of FIN 46R was effective March 31, 2004. The Company has evaluated its contractual arrangements and determined PSE’s 1995 conservation trust off-balance sheet financing transaction meets this guidance, and therefore it was consolidated in the third quarter of 2003. As a result, electricity revenues for 2003 increased $5.7 million, while conservation amortization and interest expense increased by the corresponding amount with no impact on earnings. At December 31, 2003, the balance sheet assets and liabilities increased by $4.2 million. FIN 46R also impacted the treatment of the Company’s mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of a wholly owned subsidiary trust holding solely junior subordinated debentures of the corporation (trust preferred securities). Previously, these trust preferredtrust-preferred securities were consolidated into the Company’s operations. As a result of FIN 46R, these securities have been deconsolidated and were classified as junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities (junior subordinated debt) in the fourth quarter of 2003. This change had no impact on the Company’s results of operations for 2003.operations. The Company is evaluatingalso evaluated its purchase power agreements and any other agreementsdetermined that three counterparties may be considered variable interest entities. As a result, PSE submitted requests for information to those parties; however, the parties have refused to submit to PSE the necessary information for PSE to determine whether they meet the requirements of a variable interest entity. PSE also determined that it does not have a contractual right to such information. PSE will continue to submit requests for information to the counterparties on a quarterly basis to determine if FIN 46R willis applicable.
For the three purchase power agreements that may be considered variable interest entities under FIN 46R, PSE is required to buy all the generation from these plants, subject to displacement by PSE, at rates set forth in the purchase power agreements. If at any time the counterparties cannot deliver energy to PSE, PSE would have an impact onto buy energy in the financial statements.
        In Maywholesale market at prices which could be higher or lower than the purchase power agreement prices. PSE’s Purchased Electricity expense for 2004 and 2003 the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilitiesthese three entities was $251.2 million and Equity.” SFAS No. 150 establishes the requirements for classifying and measuring as liabilities certain financial instruments that embody


obligations to redeem the financial instruments by the issuer. The adoption of SFAS No. 150 is effective with the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. However, on November 5, 2003, the FASB deferred for an indefinite period certain mandatorily redeemable noncontrolling interests associated with finite-lived subsidiaries. The Company does not have any noncontrolling interest in finite-lived subsidiaries and, therefore, is not affected by the deferral. Prior periods are not restated for the new presentation.
        SFAS No. 150 requires the Company to classify its mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as liabilities. As a result, the corresponding dividends on the mandatorily redeemable preferred stock are classified as interest expense on the income statement with no impact on income for common stock.
        In December 2003, SFAS No. 132, “Employers’ Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits” (SFAS No. 132R), was revised to include various additional disclosure requirements. SFAS No. 132R is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2003.
$273.9 million, respectively.

In June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards BoardFASB issued SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,” (SFAS No. 143), which is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002. SFAS No. 143 requires legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets to be recognized at their fair value at the time that the obligations are incurred. Upon initial recognition of a liability, that cost should be capitalized as part of the related long-lived asset and allocated to expense over the useful life of the asset. The Company adopted the new rules on asset retirement obligations on January 1, 2003. As a result, the Company recorded a $0.2 million charge to income for the cumulative effect of this accounting change.
In addition,November 2004, FASB reached a decision concerning a proposed interpretation of SFAS No. 143 titled “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations.” The proposed interpretation addresses the issue of whether SFAS No. 143 requires an entity to recognize a liability for a legal obligation to perform asset retirement when the asset retirement activities are conditional on a future event, and if so, the timing and valuation of the recognition. The decision reached by FASB was that there are no instances where a law or regulation obligates an entity to perform retirement activities but then allows the entity to permanently avoid settling the obligation. This, if part of the final issued interpretation, could potentially have an impact on the Company reclassified $124.9 million and $114.6 million in 2003 and 2002, respectively, from accumulated depreciationas assets that were previously considered outside the scope of SFAS No. 143 may be subject to a regulatory liability.
        The Emerging Issues Tax Forcethe terms of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (EITF) at its July 2003 meeting cameproposed interpretation. FASB indicated that the final interpretation is anticipated to a consensus concerning EITF Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB Statement No. 133 and Not Held for Trading Purposes as Defined in Issue No. 02-03.” The consensus reached was that determining whether realized gains and losses on physically settled derivative contracts not held for trading purposes reportedbe issued in the income statement on a gross or net basis is a matter of judgment that depends on the relevant factsfirst quarter 2005, with an effective date for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005, and circumstances. Based on the guidance in EITF No. 03-11, the Company determined that its non-trading derivative instruments should be reported net and implemented this treatment effective January 1, 2004. Consequently, revenue and purchased electricity will be reducedwith any adjustment accounted for as a resultcumulative effect of netting any non-trading derivative instruments that meet the EITF 03-11 criteria.

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

an accounting change. The Company is exposedcurrently evaluating what impact this proposed interpretation may have on the Company if issued.





QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

ENERGY PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
The regulatory mechanisms of the PGA and the PCA mitigate the impact of commodity price volatility on the Company. The PGA mechanism passes through increases and decreases in the cost of natural gas supply to marketcustomers. The PCA mechanism provides for a sharing of costs and benefits that are graduated over four levels of power cost variances with an overall cap of $40 million (+/-) plus 1% of the excess over the $40 million cap over the four-year period ending June 30, 2006.
The Company is focused on commodity price exposure and risks including changesassociated with volumetric variability in commodity pricesthe gas portfolio and interest rates.

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
electric portfolio for its customers. Gas and electric portfolio exposure is managed in accordance with Company polices and procedures. The Risk Management Committee, which is composed of Company officers, provide policy-level and strategic direction for management of the energy portfolio. The Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors periodically assesses risk management policies.

The nature of serving regulated electric customers with its wholesale portfolio of owned and contracted resources exposes the Company and its customers to some volumetric and commodity price risks within the sharing mechanism of the PCA. The Company’s energy risk management function monitors and manages these risks using analytical models and tools. The Company manages its energy supply portfolio to achieve three primary objectives:

Ensure that physical energy supplies are available to serve retail customer requirements;
Manage portfolio risks to limit undesired impacts on the Company’s costs; and
·  ensure that physical energy supplies are available to serve retail customer requirements;
Maximize
·  manage portfolio risks to limit undesired impacts on the Company’s costs; and
·  maximize the value of the Company’s energy supply assets.
The Company is not engaged in the business of assuming risk for the purpose of speculative trading revenues. Therefore wholesale market transactions are focused on balancing the Company’s energy supply assets.portfolio, reducing costs and risks where feasible, and reducing volatility in wholesale costs and margin in the portfolio. In order to manage risks effectively, the Company enters into physical and financial transactions, which are appropriate for the service territory of the Company and are relevant to its regulated electric and gas portfolios.

The portfoliorisk metrics the Company employs are aimed at assessing exposure for the purposes of developing strategies to reduce the potential exposure on a cost-effective basis in regulated utility gas and electric portfolios. Specifically, the amount of risk exposure is defined by time period and by portfolio. It is determined through statistical methods aimed at forecasting risk.
The energy risk management staff models forecasted load requirements and expected resource availability, and projects the net deficit or surplus position resulting from any imbalance between load requirements and existing resources. However, the portfolios are subject to major sources of variability (e.g., hydrohydroelectric generation, outage risk, regional economic factors, temperature-sensitive retail sales and market prices for gas and power supplies). At certain times, these sources of variability can mitigate portfolio imbalances;imbalances and at other times they can exacerbate portfolio imbalances.
Because of the volumetric and cost variability within the electric and gas portfolios, the Company runs market simulations to model potential risk scenarios. In this way, strategies can be developed to address the expected case as well as other potential scenarios. Resources in the gas portfolio include gas supply arrangements, gas storage and gas transportation contracts. Resources in the electric portfolio include power purchase agreements, generating resources and transmission contracts.
The Company’s energy risk management staff develops hedging strategies to manage deficit or surplus positions in the portfolios. The Company’s energy risk policy states that hedging and optimization strategies will be consistent with Company objectives. The Company relies on risk analysis, operational factors, professional judgment of its employees and fundamental analysis. The Company will engage in transactions that reduce risks in its electric and gas portfolios, and optimize unused capacity where possible. Cost and reliability factors are considered in its hedging strategies. The Company’s hedging activities are aimed at removing risks from the Company’s electric and gas portfolios, giving important consideration to cost of hedges and lost opportunity in order to find a balance between price stability and least cost. The hedge strategies for the Company’s energy supply portfolio. The first prioritygas and electric portfolios incorporate risk analysis, operational factors and professional judgment of its employees as well as fundamental analysis. Programmatic hedge plans are developed to ensure disciplined hedging, and discretion is to obtain reliable supply for delivery toused in hedging within specific guidelines of the Company’s retail customers. The second priority is to protect against unwanted risk exposure. The third priority is to optimize excess capacity or flexibility withinprogrammatic hedge plans approved by the wholesale portfolio.Risk Management Committee. Most hedges can be implemented in ways that retain the Company’s ability to use its energy supply optimization opportunities. OtherSome hedges are structured similarly to insurance instruments, where PSEthe Company pays an insurance premium to protect against certain extreme conditions.
        Portfolio exposure is managed in accordance with Company polices and procedures. The Risk Management Committee, which is composed of Company officers, provides policy-level and strategic direction for management of the energy portfolio. The Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors has oversight of the Risk Management Committee.
        The prices of energy commodities are subject to fluctuations due to unpredictable factors including weather, generation outages and other factors which impact supply and demand. The volumetric and commodity price risk is a consequence of purchasing energy at fixed and variable prices and providing deliveries at different tariffs and variable prices. Costs associated with ownership and operation of production facilities are another component of this risk. The Company may use forward physical delivery agreements and financial derivatives for the purpose of hedging commodity price risk.
Without jeopardizing the security of supply within its portfolio, the Company will also engageengages in optimizing the portfolio. Optimization may take the form of utilizing excess capacity, shaping flexible resources to capture their highest value and utilizing transmission capacity or capitalizing on market price movement.through third party transactions. As a result, portions of the Company’s energy portfolio are monetized through the use of forward price instruments.
instruments which help reduce overall costs.
The regulatory mechanismsCompany has entered into master netting agreements with counterparties when available to mitigate credit exposure to those counterparties. The Company believes that entering into such agreements reduces risk of settlement default for the PGAability to make only one net payment. In addition, the Company believes risk is mitigated with an improved position in potential counterparty bankruptcy situations due to a consistent netting approach.
At December 31, 2004, the Company was subject to a range of netting provisions, including both stand alone agreements and the PCA mitigateprovisions associated with the impactWestern Systems Power Pool agreement of commodity price volatility upon the Company. The PGA mechanism passes through to customers increases and decreaseswhich many energy suppliers in the cost of natural gas supply. The PCA mechanism provides forwestern United States are a sharing of costs and benefits that are graduated over four levels of power cost variances with an overall cap of $40 million (+/-) plus 1% of the excess over the $40 million cap over the four-year period ending June 30, 2006.


part.

Transactions that qualify as hedge transactions under SFAS No. 133 are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value. Changes in fair value of the Company’s derivatives are recorded each period in current earnings or other comprehensive income. Short-term derivative contracts for the purchase and sale of electricity are valued based uponon daily quoted prices from an independent energy brokerage service. Valuations for short-term and medium-term natural gas financial derivatives are derived from a combination of quotes from several independent energy brokers and are updated daily. Long-term gas financial derivatives are valued based on published pricing from a combination of independent brokerage services and are updated monthly. Option contracts are valued using market quotes and a Monte Carlo simulation-basedsimulation based model approach.
At December 31, 2003,2004, the Company had an after-tax net asset of approximately $16.2$20.0 million of energy contracts designated as qualifying cash flow hedges and a corresponding unrealized gain recorded in other comprehensive income. Of the amount in other comprehensive income, 99% of the mark-to-market gain beginning February 1, 2005 has been reclassified out of other comprehensive income to a deferred account in accordance with SFAS No. 71 due to the Company reachingexpecting to reach the $40 million cap under the PCA mechanism. The Company also had energy contracts that were marked-to-market at a lossgain of $1.2 million after-tax through current earnings for 2003the 12 months ended December 31, 2004. These mark-to-market adjustments were primarily the result of $0.1 million.excluding certain contracts from the normal purchase normal sale exception under SFAS No. 133. A portion of the mark-to-market adjustments beginning February 1, 2005, has been reclassified to a deferred account in accordance with SFAS No. 71 due to the Company expecting to reach the $40 million cap under the PCA mechanism. The Company also had a liability of approximately $12.1 million of gas contracts. All mark-to-market adjustments relating to the natural gas business have been reclassified to a deferred account in accordance with SFAS No. 71 due to the PGA mechanism. The PGA mechanism passes on to customers increases and decreases in the cost of natural gas supply. A hypothetical 10% increase in the market prices of natural gas and electricity would increase the fair value of qualifying cash flow hedges by approximately $5.2$5.5 million after-tax and would increase current earnings for those contracts marked-to-market in earnings by an immaterial amount.

DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
Amounts
Fair value of contracts outstanding December 31, 2002  $11.2
Contracts realized or otherwise settled during 2003   (1.4)
Changes in fair values of derivatives   2.8
 
Fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2003  $12.6
 
 Fair Value of Contracts with Settlement During Year
SOURCE OF FAIR VALUE (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
2004
2005-2006
2007-2008
2009 and
Thereafter

Total fair
value

Prices based on models and other valuation methods  $4.0$6.3$2.3$-- $12.6


ENERGY DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
 
AMOUNTS
 
Fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2003   $12.6 
Contracts realized or otherwise settled during 2004    (9.8)
Changes in fair values of derivatives    6.9 
Fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2004   $9.7 




 
FAIR VALUE OF CONTRACTS WITH SETTLEMENT
DURING YEAR
SOURCE OF FAIR VALUE
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
2005
2006-
2007
2008-
2009
2010 AND
THEREAFTER
TOTAL FAIR
VALUE
Prices actively quoted$  (3.8)$   6.3$    --$    --$   2.5
Prices provided by other external sources--5.41.8--7.2
Prices based on models and other valuation methods $  (3.8)$ 11.7$ 1.8$   --$   9.7

INTEREST RATE RISK
The Company believes its interest rate risk primarily relates to the use of short-term debt instruments, variable ratevariable-rate notes and leases and long-term debt financing needed to fund capital requirements. The Company manages its interest rate risk through the issuance of mostly fixed-rate debt of various maturities. The Company utilizes bank borrowings, commercial paper, line of credit facilities and accounts receivable securitization to meet short-term cash requirements. These short-term obligations are commonly refinanced with fixed-rate bonds or notes when needed and when interest rates are considered favorable. The Company may enter into swap instruments or other financial hedge instruments to manage the interest rate risk associated with these debts. The Company did not have any swap instruments outstanding as of December 31, 20032004 or 2002.2003. The carrying amounts and the fair values of Puget Energy’s fixed-rate debt instruments are:

 2003
2002
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
CARRYING
AMOUNT

FAIR
VALUE

CARRYING
AMOUNT

FAIR
VALUE

  Financial liabilities:      
    Short-term debt $         13.9$         13.9$         47.3$         47.3
    Long-term debt 2,216.32,385.32,237.12,395.9


 2004 2003
 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
CARRYING
AMOUNT
FAIR
VALUE
 
CARRYING
AMOUNT
FAIR
VALUE
Financial liabilities:     
Short-term debt$           8.3$         8.3 $         13.9$         13.9
Long-term debt- fixed-rate1
2,051.42,194.8 2,216.32,409.6
Long-term debt- variable-rate1
200.0199.9 ----
______________________
1  
PSE’s carrying value and fair value of both fixed-rate and variable-rate long-term debt in 2004 was $2,095.4 million and $2,238.7 million, respectively. PSE’s carrying value and fair value of fixed-rate long-term debt in 2003 was $2,053.0 million and $2,250.4 million, respectively.

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

See index on page 64.

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING
              AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

        None.


ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
        UnderIn the supervisionthird quarter 2004, the Company entered into two treasury lock contracts to hedge against potential rising interest rate exposure for a debt offering anticipated to be performed in the first half of 2005. A treasury lock is a financial arrangement between the Company and with the participation of Puget Energy’s and PSE’s management, including the Companies’ President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy and PSE have evaluated the effectivenessa counterparty whereby one of the Companies’ disclosure controlsparties will be required to make a payment to the other party on a specific valuation date based upon the change in value of a 30-year treasury bond. If interest rates rise related to the hedged debt from the date of issuance of the treasury lock instruments, the Company would receive a payment from the counterparty for the change in the bond value. Alternatively, if interest rates decrease related to the hedged debt from the date of issuance of the treasury lock instruments, the Company would pay the counterparty for the change in bond value. These treasury lock contracts were designated under SFAS No. 133 criteria as cash flow hedges, with all changes in market value for each reporting period being presented net of tax in other comprehensive income. All financial hedge contracts of this type are reviewed by senior management and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-14(c) underpresented to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) asPricing Committee of the end of the period covered by this annual report. Based upon that evaluation, the President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Puget Energy and PSE concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS
        There have been no significant changes in Puget Energy’s or PSE’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2003 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, Puget Energy’s or PSE’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART III

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANTS

PUGET ENERGY
        The information required by this item with respect to Puget Energy is incorporated herein by reference to the material under “Available Information” in Part I of this report and “Proposal — Election of Directors,” “Directors Continuing in Office”, “BoardBoard of Directors, and Corporate Governance” and “Security Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers — Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in Puget Energy’s proxy statement for its 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (Commission File No. 1-16305). Reference is also madeare approved prior to the information regarding Puget Energy’s executive officers set forth in Part I of this report.

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
        The information called for by Item 10 with respect to PSE is omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (omission of information by certain wholly owned subsidiaries).

ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

PUGET ENERGY
        The information required by this item with respect to Puget Energy is incorporated herein by reference to the material under “Director Compensation,” “Executive Compensation” and “Employment Contracts, Termination of Employment and Change-In-Control Arrangements” in Puget Energy’s proxy statement for its 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (Commission File No. 1-16305).

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
        The information called for by Item 11 with respect to PSE is omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (omission of information by certain wholly owned subsidiaries).

ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND
                MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
        The following table sets forth information regarding the common stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options, warrants and other rights granted to employees, consultants or directors under all of the Puget Energy existing equity compensation plans, as ofexecution. At December 31, 2003.


 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
Plan Category
Number of securities to be
issued upon exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights

 Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights

 Number of securities
remaining available for
issuance under equity
compensation plans
(excluding securities
reflected in column (a))

Equity compensation plans
   approved by security holders
40,000  $22.51  1,194,480   (1)(2)(3)
Equity compensation plans not
   aproved by security holders

260,000


   (4)


 


$22.51


   (4)


 


41,879


   (5)


Total300,000  $22.51  1,236,359 

        The table does not include 43,554 deferred stock units2004, the unrealized loss associated with the two treasury lock contracts was $11.3 million that qualify as cash flow hedges and is included in other comprehensive income. A hypothetical 10% decrease in the Company’s deferred compensation plans that are payableinterest rate of a 30-year treasury note would result in stock, plus cash for any fractional shares,an additional loss of which all are currently vested.

$12.1 million net of tax in other comprehensive income.The treasury lock contracts will settle completely in 2005.

(1)
TREASURY LOCK CONTRACTS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
Includes 259,662 shares remaining available for issuance under Puget Energy’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan.AMOUNTS
(2)Includes 934,818 shares remaining available for issuance under Puget Energy’s Amended and Restated 1995 Long-Term Incentive Plan (performance shares). Depending on the level of achievement of performance goals, the performance shares may be paid out at zero shares at minimum achievement level, 790,922 shares at target level, or 1,181,103 at maximum level. Because there is no exercise price associated with performance shares, such shares are not included in the weighted-average price calculation.
(3)In addition to stock options, Puget Energy may also grant stock awards, performance awards and other stock-based awards under the Puget Energy Amended and Restated 1995 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
(4)Does not include stock options that were assumed by PSE in connection with its acquisition of Washington Energy Company. The assumed options are for the purchase of 11,301 shares of Puget Energy common stock and have a weighted-average exercise price of $20.21 per share. In the event that any assumed option is not exercised, no further option to purchase shares of common stock will be issued in place of such unexercised option.
(5)Represents 41,879 shares available for issuance under Puget Energy’s Nonemployee Director Stock Plan (Director Stock Plan). The Director Stock Plan provides for automatic stock payments to each of Puget Energy’s nonemployee directors. Each nonemployee director who is a nonemployee director at any time during a calendar year receives a stock payment as a portion of the quarterly retainer paid to such director. Effective July 1, 2003, the number of shares that will be issued to each nonemployee director as a stock payment under the Director Stock Plan is determined by dividing two-thirds of the quarterly retainer payable to such director for a fiscal quarter by the fair marketFair value of Puget Energy’s common stock on the last business day of that fiscal quarter. Prior to July 1, 2003, 40% of the quarterly retainer was payable in stock. A nonemployee director may elect to increase the percentage of his or her quarterly retainer that is paid in stock, up to 100%. A nonemployee director may also elect to defer the issuance of shares under the Director Stock Plan in accordance with the terms of the plan.

SUMMARY OF EQUITY COMPENSATION PLANS NOT APPROVED BY SHAREHOLDERS

NON-PLAN GRANTS
        On January 7, 2002, Puget Energy granted Stephen P. Reynolds, President and Chief Executive Officer of Puget Energy and PSE, two non-qualified stock option grants outside of any equity incentive plan adopted by Puget Energy (the Non-Plan Grants). These stock option grants were an inducement to Mr. Reynolds’ employment and in lieu of participation in the Companies’ Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan. One of the Non-Plan Grants made to Mr. Reynolds is for 150,000 shares of Puget Energy common stock and vestscontracts outstanding at a rate of 20% per year, for full vesting after five years. The other Non-Plan Grant made to Mr. Reynolds is for 110,000 shares of Puget Energy common stock and vests at a rate of 25% per year, for full vesting after four years. The exercise price of both Non-Plan Grants is $22.51 per share, equal to 100% of the fair market value of Puget Energy common stock on the date of grant. As of December 31, 2003, all of the 260,000 shares subject to the Non-Plan Grants remained outstanding. Except as expressly provided in the option agreement relating to each of the Non-Plan Grants, the Non-Plan Grants are subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Amended and Restated 1995 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
        Upon a change of control (as defined in the Employment Agreement between Puget Energy and Mr. Reynolds, dated January 7, 2002), both Non-Plan Grants will become fully vested and immediately exercisable. If Mr. Reynolds’ employment or service relationship with Puget Energy is terminated by Puget Energy without cause or by Mr. Reynolds with good reason, the vesting and exercisability of the Non-Plan Grants will be accelerated as follows: (1) the vesting and exercisability of the 150,000-share Non-Plan Grant will be accelerated such that the total number of shares vested and exercisable will be calculated as if the option had vested on a daily basis over the four-year period through the date of termination and (2) the vesting and exercisability of the 110,000-share Non-Plan Grant will be accelerated by two years. For purposes of the Non-Plan Grants, the terms “cause” and “good reason” have the meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement between Puget Energy and Mr. Reynolds, dated January 1, 2002.
        Subject to the provisions regarding a change of control and termination of employment or service relationship by Puget Energy without cause or by Mr. Reynolds for good reason, as described above, upon termination of Mr. Reynolds’ employment or service relationship with


Puget Energy for any reason, the unvested portion of the Non-Plan Grants will terminate automatically and the vested portion may be exercised as follows: (1) generally, on or before the earlier of three months after termination and the expiration date of the option, (2) if termination is due to retirement, disability or death, on or before the earlier of one year after termination and the expiration date of the option, or (3) if death occurs after termination, but while the option is still exercisable, on or before the earlier of one year after the date of death and the expiration date of the option.
        The Non-Plan Grants provide for the payment of the exercise price of options by any of the following means: (1) cash, (2) check, (3) tendering shares of Puget Energy’s common stock, either actually or by attestation, already owned for at least six months (or any shorter period necessary to avoid a charge to Puget Energy’s earnings for financial reporting purposes) that on the day prior to the exercise date have a fair market value equal to the aggregate exercise price of the shares being purchased, (4) delivery of a properly executed exercise notice, together with irrevocable instructions to a brokerage firm designated by Puget Energy to deliver promptly to Puget Energy the aggregate amount of sale or loan proceeds to pay the option exercise price and any withholding tax obligations that may arise in connection with the exercise or (5) any other method permitted by the plan administrator.

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF PUGET SOUND ENERGY
        As of December 31, 2003, all of the issued and outstanding shares of PSE’s common stock were held beneficially and of record by Puget Energy.

ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

        None

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

        The aggregate fees billed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company’s independent auditors, for the year ended December 31 were as follows:

 2003
2002
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
PUGET
ENERGY

PSE
PUGET
ENERGY

PSE
Audit fees1 $850$453$791$324
Audit related fees2  261 147 195 151
Tax fees3  200 168 288 139
All other fees4  -- -- 23 --

Total $1,311$768$1,297$614



1For professional services rendered for the audit of Puget Energy's and PSE's annual financial statements, reviews of financial statements included in the Companies' Forms 10-Q, and consents and reviews of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 2003 fees are estimated and include an aggregate amount of approximately $167,000 and $277,000 billed to Puget Energy and PSE, respectively, through December 31, 2003. The 2002 fees include an aggregate amount2003$            --
Contracts realized or otherwise settled during 2004--
Changes in fair values of $100,000 and $297,000 billed to Puget Energy and PSE, respectively, throughderivatives(11.3)
Fair value of contracts outstanding at December 31, 2002.2004$      (11.3)
Consists of employee benefit plan audits, due diligence reviews and assistance with Sarbanes-Oxley readinessFINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

3Consists of tax planning, consulting and tax return reviews.
4For 2002, other fees consisted of financial information systems design and implementation fees relating to the final portion of work on the implementation of Puget Sound Energy's ConsumerLinX customer information system, initiated in 2001 and completed in February 2002.


        The Audit Committees of the Company have adopted policies for the pre-approval of all audit and non-audit services provided by the Company’s independent auditor. The policies are designed to ensure that the provision of these services does not impair the auditor’s independence. Under the policies, unless a type of service to be provided by the independent auditor has received general pre-approval, it will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee. In addition, any proposed services exceeding pre-approved cost levels will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee.
        The annual audit services engagement terms and fees, as well as any changes in terms, conditions and fees relating to the engagement, are subject to specific pre-approval by the Audit Committees. In addition, on an annual basis, the Audit Committees grant general pre-approval for specific categories of audit, audit-related, tax and other services, within specified fee levels, that may be provided by the independent auditor. With respect to each proposed pre-approved service, the independent auditor is required to provide detailed back-up documentation to the Audit Committees regarding the specific services to be provided. Under the policies, the Audit Committees may delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of their members. The member or members to whom such authority is delegated shall report any pre-approval decisions to the Audit Committees at their next scheduled meeting. The Audit Committees do not delegate responsibilities to pre-approve services performed by the independent auditor to management.
        For 2003 all audit and non-audit services were pre-approved.


ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON
                FORM 8-K

(a)Documents filed as part of this report:
1)Financial statement schedules —see index on page 64.
2)Exhibits — see index on page 111.

(b)Reports on Form 8-K:
Puget Energy and Puget Sound Energy
1)Form 8-K dated on October 24, 2003 – Item 5 Other Events and Item 7 Exhibits, related to PSE’s acquisition of a 49.85% share of the Frederickson Power LP’s generation facility.
2)Form 8-K dated November 4, 2003 — Item 5 Other Events, related to Puget Energy’s sale of common stock.

SIGNATURES

        Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

PUGET ENERGY, INC.
PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.
/s/ Stephen P. Reynolds
/s/ Stephen P. Reynolds
Stephen P. ReynoldsStephen P. Reynolds
President and Chief Executive OfficerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
  
Date: March 9, 2004 
Date: March 9, 2004


        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of each registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

SIGNATURE

TITLE

DATE
(Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm - Puget Sound Energy and PSE unless otherwise noted) 
  
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
 
  
PUGET ENERGY:
 
/s/ Douglas P. Beighle
ChairmanConsolidated Statements of Income for the BoardMarch 9,years ended December 31, 2004,
(Douglas P. Beighle) 2003 and 2002 
  
 
  
/s/ Stephen P. Reynolds
President, Chief Executive OfficerConsolidated Statements of Capitalization, December 31, 2004 and Director
(Stephen P. Reynolds)2003 
  
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
 
  
Senior Vice President Finance
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and Chief Financial Officer
(Bertrand A. Valdman)2002 
  
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
 
  
PUGET SOUND ENERGY:
 
/s/ James W. Eldredge
Corporate SecretaryConsolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and Chief Accounting Officer
(James W. Eldredge)2002 
  
 
  
Director
(Charles W. Bingham) 
  
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
 
  
Director
(Phyllis J. Campbell)
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
 
  
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
 
  
 
/s/ Craig W. Cole
Director
(Craig W. Cole)Combined Puget Energy and Puget Sound Energy Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 
  
 
  
/s/ Robert L. DrydenSCHEDULE:
Director
(Robert L. Dryden) 
  
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
 
  
/s/ Stephen E. Frank
Director
(Stephen E. Frank)All other schedules have been omitted because of the absence of the conditions under which they are required, or because the information required is included in the financial statements or the notes thereto. 
  
/s/ Tomio Moriguchi
Director
(Tomio Moriguchi)
/s/ Dr. Kenneth P. Mortimer
Director
(Dr. Kenneth P. Mortimer)
/s/ Sally G. Narodick
Director
(Sally G. Narodick)Financial statements of PSE’s subsidiaries are not filed herewith inasmuch as the assets, revenues, earnings and earnings reinvested in the business of the subsidiaries are not material in relation to those of PSE. 



and
PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.

        The accompanying consolidated financial statements of


Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the Company) management assumes accountability for maintaining compliance with our established financial accounting policies and for reporting our results with objectivity and integrity. The Company believes it is essential for investors and other users of the consolidated financial statements to have been prepared underconfidence that the direction of management, whichfinancial information we provide is timely, complete, relevant, and accurate. Management is also responsible for their integrityto present fairly Puget Energy’s and objectivity. ThePuget Sound Energy’s consolidated financial statements, have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principlesprinciples.
Management, with oversight of the Board of Directors, established and include amountsmaintains a strong ethical climate under the guidance of our Corporate Ethics and Compliance Program so that our affairs are conducted to high standards of proper personal and corporate conduct. Management also established an internal control system that provides reasonable assurance as to the integrity and accuracy of the consolidated financial statements. These policies and practices reflect corporate governance initiatives that are compliant with the corporate governance requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, including:
·  Our Board has adopted clear corporate governance guidelines.
·  With the exception of the Chief Executive Officer, the Board members are independent of the Company and its management.
·  All members of our key Board committees - the Audit Committee, the Compensation and Development Committee and the Governance and Public Affairs Committee - are independent of the Company and its management.
·  The independent members of our Board meet regularly without the presence of Puget Energy and Puget Sound Energy management.
·  The Charters of our Board committees clearly establish their respective roles and responsibilities.
·  The Company has adopted a Compliance and Ethics Code with a hotline (through an independent third party) available to all employees, and our Audit Committee has procedures in place for the anonymous submission of employee complaints on accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters. The Compliance Program is led by a senior officer of the Company.
·  Our internal audit control function maintains critical oversight over the key areas of our business and financial processes and controls, and reports directly to our Board Audit Committee.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, reports directly to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s accompanying report on our consolidated financial statements is based on judgments and estimates by management where necessary. Management also prepared the other informationits examination conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the Annual ReportUnited States, including a review of our internal control structure for purposes of designing their audit procedures. Our independent registered accounting firm has reported on Form 10-Kthe effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as required under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Company is confident in the effectiveness of our internal controls and is responsible for its accuracyour ability to meet the requirements of this newly enacted legislation.
We are committed to improving shareholder value and consistency with theaccept our fiduciary oversight responsibilities. We are dedicated to ensuring that our high standards of financial statements.
        Puget Energyaccounting and Puget Sound Energy maintain areporting as well as our underlying system of internal control which,controls are maintained. Our culture demands integrity and we have confidence in management’s opinion, provides reasonable assurance that assets are properly safeguarded and transactions are executed in accordance with management’s authorization and properly recorded to produce reliable financial records and reports. The system of internal control provides for appropriate division of responsibility and is documented by written policy and updated as necessary. Puget Sound Energy’s internal audit staff assesses the effectiveness and adequacy of the internal controls on a regular basis and recommends improvements when appropriate. Management considers the internal auditor’s and independent auditor’s recommendations concerning Puget Energy’s and Puget Sound Energy’sour processes, our internal controls, and takes steps to implement those that they believeour people, who are appropriateobjective in the circumstances.
        In addition, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the independent auditors, have performed audit procedures deemed appropriate to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are freetheir responsibilities and who operate under a high level of material misstatement.ethical standards.

        The Board of Directors pursues its oversight role for the financial statements through the audit committee, which is composed solely of outside Directors and two of those Directors qualify as financial experts under the rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The audit committee meets regularly with management, the internal auditors and the independent auditors, jointly and separately, to review management’s process of implementation and maintenance of internal accounting controls and auditing and financial reporting matters. The internal and independent auditors have unrestricted access to the audit committee.


/s/ Stephen P. Reynolds
 /s/ Bertrand A. Valdman
 /s/ James W. Eldredge
Stephen P. Reynolds Bertrand A. Valdman James W. Eldredge
President and Chief Executive Officer
Senior Vice President Finance and
And Chief Financial Officer
Corporate Secretary and
Chief Accounting Officer





We have completed an integrated audit of Puget Energy, Inc.’s 2004 consolidated financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and audits of its 2003 and 2002 consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Our opinions, based on our audits, are presented below.

Consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index of this Annual Report on Form 10-K present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Puget Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 20032004 and 2002,2003, and the results of itstheir operations and itstheir cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 20032004 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index of the document presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management; ourmanagement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with auditingthe standards generally accepted inof the United States of America, whichPublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes 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. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As described in Note 152 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2001,2004, the Company changed its method of accounting for realized gains and losses on physically settled derivative instruments and hedging activitiescontracts not held for trading purposes as required by EITF Issue No. 03-11 “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133 “Accountingand Not ‘Held for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.”
Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03”. As described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2003, the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143 “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.”

Obligations”.


Internal control over financial reporting
Also, in our opinion, management’s assessment, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A, that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 based on criteria established inInternal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on those criteria. Furthermore, in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established inInternal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the COSO. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on management’s assessment and on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit of internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.
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
Seattle, Washington
March 5, 2004

1, 2005






We have completed an integrated audit of Puget Sound Energy, Inc.’s 2004 consolidated financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and audits of its 2003 and 2002 consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Our opinions, based on our audits, are presented below.

Consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in the accompanying index of this Annual Report on Form 10-K present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries at December 31, 20032004 and 2002,2003, and the results of itstheir operations and itstheir cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 20032004 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index of the document presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management; ourmanagement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with auditingthe standards generally accepted inof the United States of America, whichPublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes 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. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As described in Note 152 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2001,2004, the Company changed its method of accounting for realized gains and losses on physically settled derivative instruments and hedging activitiescontracts not held for trading purposes as required by EITF Issue No. 03-11 “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133 “Accountingand Not ‘Held for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.”
Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03”. As described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2003, the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143 “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.”

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPObligations”.


Seattle, Washington
March 5, 2004


ConsolidatedInternal control over financial reporting
Also, in our opinion, management’s assessment, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Statements, Financial Statement Schedule CoveredReporting appearing under Item 9A, that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 based on criteria established inInternal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Foregoing ReportCommittee of Independent AccountantsSponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on those criteria. Furthermore, in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established inInternal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the COSO. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and Exhibitsfor its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on management’s assessment and on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit of internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.

        CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
        PUGET ENERGY:
Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001
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.

Consolidated Balance Sheets, December 31, 2003 and 2002

Consolidated Statements of Capitalization, December 31, 2003 and 2002

Consolidated Statements of Common Shareholders' Equity
           for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001
/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Seattle, Washington
March 1, 2005

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the years
           ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years
          ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

PUGET SOUND ENERGY:
Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

Consolidated Balance Sheets, December 31, 2003 and 2002
Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Operating revenues:       
Electric $1,423,034 $1,400,743 $1,288,744 
Gas  769,306  634,230  697,155 
Non-utility construction services  369,936  341,787  319,529 
Other  6,537  6,043  9,753 
Total operating revenues  2,568,813  2,382,803  2,315,181 
Operating expenses:          
Energy costs:          
Purchased electricity  723,567  714,469  568,230 
Electric generation fuel  80,772  64,999  113,538 
Residential exchange  (174,473) (173,840) (149,970)
Purchased gas  451,302  327,132  405,016 
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments  (526) 106  (11,612)
Utility operations and maintenance  291,232  289,702  286,220 
Other operations and maintenance  322,517  303,972  273,157 
Depreciation and amortization  246,842  236,866  228,743 
Conservation amortization  22,688  33,458  17,501 
Goodwill impairment  91,196  --  -- 
Taxes other than income taxes  221,981  208,395  215,429 
Income taxes  74,964  72,369  59,260 
Total operating expenses  2,352,062  2,077,628  2,005,512 
Operating income  216,751  305,175  309,669 
Other income (deductions):          
Other income  4,292  1,564  5,458 
Interest charges:          
AFUDC  5,420  3,343  1,969 
Interest expense  (178,419) (187,316) (198,346)
Mandatorily redeemable securities interest expense  (91) (1,072) -- 
Preferred stock dividends of subsidiary  --  (5,151) (7,831)
Minority interest in earnings of consolidated subsidiary  7,069  (177) (867)
Net income before cumulative effect of accounting change  55,022  116,366  110,052 
Cumulative effect of implementation of accounting change (net of tax)  --  169  -- 
Net income $55,022 $116,197 $110,052 
Common shares outstanding weighted average (in thousands)  99,470  94,750  88,372 
Diluted shares outstanding weighted average (in thousands)  99,911  95,309  88,777 
Basic earnings per common share before cumulative effect of
accounting change
 
$
0.55
 
$
1.23
 
$
1.24
 
Basic earnings per common share for cumulative effect of accounting
change
  --  --  -- 
Basic earnings per common share $0.55 $1.23 $1.24 
Diluted earnings per common share before cumulative effect of
accounting change
 
$
0.55
 
$
1.22
 
$
1.24
 
Diluted earnings per common share for cumulative effect of accounting
change
  --  --  -- 
Diluted earnings per common share $0.55 $1.22 $1.24 

Consolidated Statements of Capitalization, December 31, 2003 and 2002

Consolidated Statements of Common Shareholders' Equity
          for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the years
           ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years
          ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

NOTES:
        Combined Puget Energy and Puget Sound Energy Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

SUPPLEMENTAL QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA:

SCHEDULE:

         II.

Valuation and Qualifying Accounts and Reserves for the
years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001


        All other schedules have been omitted because of the absence of the conditions under which they are required,
        or because the information required is included in the financial statements or the notes thereto.

        Financial statements of PSE's subsidiaries are not filed herewith inasmuch as the assets, revenues, earnings
        and earnings reinvested in the business of the subsidiaries are not material in relation to those of PSE.

EXHIBITS:
        Exhibit Index

Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
          INCOME
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003   
2002   
2001   
  Operating revenues:        
  Electric  $1,509,463 $1,365,885 $1,865,227 
  Gas   634,230  697,155  815,071 
  Non-utility construction services   341,787  319,529  173,786 
  Other   6,043  9,753  32,476 

       Total operating revenues   2,491,523  2,392,322  2,886,560 

  Operating expenses:  
  Energy costs:  
    Purchased electricity   823,189  645,371  918,676 
    Residential exchange   (173,840) (149,970) (75,864)
    Purchased gas   327,132  405,016  537,431 
    Electric generation fuel   64,999  113,538  281,405 
    Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments   106  (11,612) (11,182)
  Utility operations and maintenance   289,702  286,220  265,789 
  Other operations and maintenance   303,972  273,157  156,731 
  Depreciation and amortization   236,866  228,743  217,540 
  Conservation amortization   33,458  17,501  6,493 
  Taxes other than income taxes   208,395  215,429  212,582 
  Income taxes   72,369  59,260  79,838 

       Total operating expenses   2,186,348  2,082,653  2,589,439 

  Operating income   305,175  309,669  297,121 
  Other income   1,564  5,458  14,526 

  Income before interest charges   306,739  315,127  311,647 

  Interest charges:  
    AFUDC   (3,343) (1,969) (4,446)
    Interest expense   187,316  198,346  194,505 
    Mandatorily redeemable securities interest expense   1,072  --  -- 

       Total interest charges   185,045  196,377  190,059 

  Minority interest in earnings of consolidated subsidiary   177  867  -- 

  Net income before cumulative effect of accounting change   121,517  117,883  121,588 
  Cumulative effect of implementation of accounting change (net of tax)   169  --  14,749 

  Net income   121,348  117,883  106,839 
  Less: preferred stock dividends accrual   5,151  7,831  8,413 

  Income for common stock  $116,197 $110,052 $98,426 

  Common shares outstanding weighted average   94,750  88,372  86,445 

  Diluted shares outstanding weighted average   95,309  88,777  86,703 

  Basic earnings per common share before  
    cumulative effect of accounting change  $1.23 $1.24 $1.31 
  Basic earnings for cumulative effect of accounting change   --  --  (0.17)

  Basic earnings per common share  $1.23 $1.24 $1.14 

  Diluted earnings per common share before  
    cumulative effect of accounting change  $1.22 $1.24 $1.31 
  Diluted earnings for cumulative effect of accounting change   --  --  (0.17)

  Diluted earnings per common share  $1.22 $1.24 $1.14 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
          ASSETS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
  Utility plant:      
    Electric plant  $4,265,908 $4,229,352 
    Gas plant   1,749,102  1,645,865 
    Common plant   390,622  378,844 
    Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization   (2,325,405) (2,223,190)

       Net utility plant   4,080,227  4,030,871 

  Other property and investments:  
    Investment in Bonneville Exchange Power Contract   47,609  51,136 
    Goodwill, net   133,302  125,555 
    Intangibles, net   18,707  18,652 
    Non-utility property, net   91,932  80,855 
    Other   110,543  101,932 

       Total other property and investments   402,093  378,130 

  Current assets:  
    Cash   27,481  176,669 
    Restricted cash   2,537  18,871 
    Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts   227,115  279,623 
    Unbilled revenues   131,798  112,115 
    Materials and supplies, at average cost   85,128  70,402 
    Current portion of unrealized gain on derivative instruments   7,593  3,741 
    Prepayments and other   12,200  11,323 

       Total current assets   493,852  672,744 

  Other long-term assets:  
    Regulatory asset for deferred income taxes   142,792  167,058 
    Regulatory asset for PURPA buyout costs   227,753  243,584 
    Unrealized gain on derivative instruments   8,624  9,870 
    PCA mechanism   3,605  -- 
    Other   315,739  269,876 

     Total other long-term assets   698,513  690,388 

  Total assets  $5,674,685 $5,772,133 



Puget Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
Utility plant:     
Electric plant $4,389,882 $4,265,908 
Gas plant  1,881,768  1,749,102 
Common plant  409,677  390,622 
Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization  (2,452,969) (2,325,405)
Net utility plant  4,228,358  4,080,227 
Other property and investments:     
Goodwill, net  43,503  133,302 
Intangibles, net  16,680  18,707 
Other  257,785  250,084 
Total other property and investments  317,968  402,093 
Current assets:     
Cash  19,771  27,481 
Restricted cash  1,633  2,537 
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts  216,304  227,115 
Unbilled revenues  140,391  131,798 
Purchased gas adjustment receivable  19,088  -- 
Materials and supplies, at average cost  107,356  85,128 
Current portion of unrealized gain on derivative instruments  8,087  7,593 
Prepayments and other  20,360  12,200 
Total current assets  532,990  493,852 
Other long-term assets:     
Regulatory asset for deferred income taxes  127,252  142,792 
Regulatory asset for PURPA buyout costs  211,241  227,753 
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments  13,765  8,624 
Power cost adjustment mechanism  --  3,605 
Other  401,795  340,056 
Total other long-term assets  754,053  722,830 
Total assets $5,833,369 $5,699,002 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
          CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
  Capitalization:    
  (See Consolidated Statements of Capitalization): 
     Common equity$1,655,046$1,523,787
     Preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption -- 60,000

       Total shareholders' equity 1,655,046 1,583,787

  Redeemable securities and long-term debt: 
     Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption 1,889 43,162
    Corporation obligated, mandatorily redeemable preferred 
     securities of subsidiary trust holding solely junior 
     subordinated debentures of the corporation -- 300,000
    Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a 
     subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred 
     securities 280,250 --
     Long-term debt 1,969,489 2,160,276

       Total redeemable securities and long-term debt 2,251,628 2,503,438

       Total capitalization 3,906,674 4,087,225

  Minority interest in consolidated subsidiary 11,689 10,629

  Current liabilities: 
     Accounts payable 214,357 205,619
     Short-term debt 13,893 47,295
     Current maturities of long-term debt 246,829 76,837
     Purchased gas liability 11,984 83,811
     Accrued expenses: 
       Taxes 77,451 62,562
       Salaries and wages 12,712 11,441
       Interest 32,954 37,942
     Current portion of unrealized loss on derivative instruments 3,636 2,410
     Other 46,378 44,130

       Total current liabilities 660,194 572,047

Long-term liabilities: 
  Deferred income taxes 755,235 730,675
  Other deferred credits 340,893 371,557

        Total long-term liabilities 1,096,128 1,102,232

  Commitments and contingencies -- --

  Total capitalization and liabilities$5,674,685$5,772,133



Puget Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
Capitalization:     
(See Consolidated Statements of Capitalization )
     
Common equity $1,622,276 $1,655,046 
Total shareholders’ equity  1,622,276  1,655,046 
Redeemable securities and long-term debt:       
Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption  1,889  1,889 
Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding
mandatorily redeemable preferred securities
  280,250  
280,250
 
Long-term debt  2,212,532  1,969,489 
Total redeemable securities and long-term debt  2,494,671  2,251,628 
Total capitalization  4,116,947  3,906,674 
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiary  4,648  11,689 
Current liabilities:       
Accounts payable  239,520  214,357 
Short-term debt  8,297  13,893 
Current maturities of long-term debt  38,933  246,829 
Purchased gas adjustment liability  --  11,984 
Accrued expenses:       
Taxes  77,698  77,451 
Salaries and wages  13,829  12,712 
Interest  29,005  32,954 
Current portion of unrealized loss on derivative instruments  19,261  3,636 
Tenaska disallowance reserve  3,156  -- 
Other  61,155  46,378 
Total current liabilities  490,854  660,194 
Long-term liabilities:       
Deferred income taxes  810,726  755,235 
Long-term portion of unrealized loss on derivative instruments  249  -- 
Other deferred credits  409,945  365,210 
Total long-term liabilities  1,220,920  1,120,445 
Commitments and contingencies       
Total capitalization and liabilities $5,833,369 $5,699,002 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
          CAPITALIZATION
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31

2003
 
2002
  Common equity:      
    Common stock $0.01 par value, 250,000,000 shares authorized, 99,074,070 and  
      93,642,659 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003 and 2002  $991 $936 
    Additional paid-in capital   1,603,901  1,484,615 
    Earnings reinvested in the business   58,217  36,396 
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) - net of tax   (8,063) 1,840 

       Total common equity   1,655,046  1,523,787 

  Preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption - cumulative - $25 par value:*  
    7.45% series II - 2,400,000 shares authorized, 0 and 2,400,000 shares outstanding at  
    December 31, 2003 and 2002   --  60,000 

       Total preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption   --  60,000 

  Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption - cumulative - $100 par value: *  
      4.84% series - 150,000 shares authorized,  
      14,583 and 14,808 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003 and 2002   1,458  1,481 
      4.70% series - 150,000 shares authorized,  
      4,311 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003 and 2002   431  431 
      7.75% series - 750,000 shares authorized,  
      0 and 412,500 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003 and 2002   --  41,250 

       Total preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption   1,889  43,162 

  Corporation obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of  
    subsidiary trust holding solely junior subordinated debentures of the   --  300,000 
    corporation  
  Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust  
    holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities   280,250  -- 

  Long-term debt:  
    First mortgage bonds and senior notes   1,891,158  1,932,000 
    Pollution control revenue bonds:  
      Revenue refunding 1991 series, due 2021   --  50,900 
      Revenue refunding 1992 series, due 2022   --  87,500 
      Revenue refunding 1993 series, due 2020   --  23,460 
      Revenue refunding 2003 series, due 2031   161,860  -- 
    Other notes   163,313  143,281 
    Unamortized discount - net of premium   (13) (28)
    Long-term debt due within one year   (246,829) (76,837)

      Total long-term debt excluding current maturities   1,969,489  2,160,276 

  Total capitalization  $3,906,674 $4,087,225 




Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
Common equity:     
Common stock $0.01 par value, 250,000,000 shares authorized, 99,868,368 and 99,074,070 shares
outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2003
 
$
999
 
$
991
 
Additional paid-in capital  1,621,756  1,603,901 
Earnings reinvested in the business  13,853  58,217 
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)- net of tax
  (14,332) (8,063)
Total common equity  1,622,276  1,655,046 
Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption- cumulative- $100 par value: *
       
4.84% series-150,000 shares authorized,
14,583 shares outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2003
  
1,458
  
1,458
 
4.70% series-150,000 shares authorized,
4,311 shares outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2003
  
431
  
431
 
Total preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption  1,889  1,889 
Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding
mandatorily redeemable preferred securities
  
280,250
  
280,250
 
Long-term debt:       
First mortgage bonds and senior notes  1,933,500  1,891,158 
Pollution control revenue bonds:       
Revenue refunding 2003 series, due 2031  161,860  161,860 
Other notes  156,105  163,313 
Unamortized discount- net of premium
  --  (13)
Long-term debt due within one year  (38,933) (246,829)
Total long-term debt excluding current maturities  2,212,532  1,969,489 
Total capitalization $4,116,947 $3,906,674 

* Puget Energy has 50,000,000 shares authorized for $0.01 par value preferred stock. PSEPuget Sound Energy has 13,000,000 shares authorized for $25 par value preferred stock and 3,000,000 shares authorized for $100 par value preferred stock. The preferred stock is available for issuance under mandatory and non-mandatory redemption provisions.


The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
          COMMON SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
 Common Stock
Additional Accumulated
Other
 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003, 2002 AND 2001

Shares
Amount
Paid-in
Capital

Retained
Earnings

Comprehensive
Income

Total Amount
  Balance at December 31, 2000   85,903,791 $859,038 $470,179 $92,673 $4,750 $1,426,640 
  Net income   --  --  --  106,839  --  106,839 
  Preferred stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (8,485) --  (8,485)
  Common stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (158,798) --  (158,798)
  Reclassification of par value in connection   -- 
    with the formation of Puget Energy   --  (858,179) 858,179  --  --  -- 
  Common stock issued on dividend
     reinvestment plan
   1,119,568  11  25,551  --  --  25,562 
  Other   (149) --  5,037  --  --  5,037 
  Other comprehensive income   --  --  --  --  (34,071) (34,071)

  Balance at December 31, 2001   87,023,210 $870 $1,358,946 $32,229 $(29,321)$1,362,724 
  Net income   --  --  --  117,883  --  117,883 
  Preferred stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (7,904) --  (7,904)
  Common stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (105,687) --  (105,687)
  Common stock issued:  
    New issuance   5,750,000  57  114,639  --  --  114,696 
    Dividend reinvestment plan   801,205  8  16,900  --  --  16,908 
    Employee plans   68,252  1  550  --  --  551 
  Other   (8) --  (6,420) (125) --  (6,545)
  Other comprehensive income   --  --  --  --  31,161  31,161 

  Balance at December 31, 2002   93,642,659 $936 $1,484,615 $36,396 $1,840 $1,523,787 
  Net income   --  --  --  121,348  --  121,348 
  Preferred stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (5,562) --  (5,562)
  Common stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (93,965) --  (93,965)
  Common stock issued:  
    New issuance   4,650,600  47  102,231  --  --  102,278 
    Dividend reinvestment plan   721,340  7  15,447  --  --  15,454 
    Employee plans   59,475  1  1,616  --  --  1,617 
  Other   (4) --  (8) --  --  (8)
  Other comprehensive income   --  --  --  --  (9,903) (9,903)

  Balance at December 31, 2003   99,074,070 $991 $1,603,901 $58,217 $(8,063)$1,655,046 


Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
  
 
Common Stock
     
 
Accumulated
   
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2004, 2003 & 2002
 
 
 
Shares
 
 
 
Amount
 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital
 
 
Retained
Earnings
 
Other
Comprehensive
Income
 
 
Total Amount
 
Balance at December 31, 2001  87,023,210 $870 $1,358,946 $32,229 $(29,321)$1,362,724 
Net income  --  --  --  110,052  --  110,052 
Common stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (105,687) --  (105,687)
Common stock issued:                   
New issuance  5,750,000  57  114,639  --  --  114,696 
Dividend reinvestment plan  801,205  8  16,900  --  --  16,908 
Employee plans  68,252  1  550  --  --  551 
Other  (8) --  (6,420) (198) --  (6,618)
Other comprehensive income  --  --  --  --  31,161  31,161 
                    
Balance at December 31, 2002  93,642,659 $936 $1,484,615 $36,396 $1,840 $1,523,787 
Net income  --  --  --  116,197  --  116,197 
Common stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (93,965) --  (93,965)
Common stock issued:                   
New issuance  4,650,600  47  102,231  --  --  102,278 
Dividend reinvestment plan  721,340  7  15,447  --  --  15,454 
Employee plans  59,475  1  1,616  --  --  1,617 
Other  (4) --  (8) (411) --  (419)
Other comprehensive loss  --  --  --  --  (9,903) (9,903)
                    
Balance at December 31, 2003  99,074,070 $991 $1,603,901 $58,217 $(8,063)$1,655,046 
Net income  --  --  --  55,022  --  55,022 
Common stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (99,386) --  (99,386)
Common stock issued:                   
New issuance  5,195  --  68  --  --  68 
Dividend reinvestment plan  681,491  7  15,170  --  --  15,177 
Employee plans  107,612  1  2,617  --  --  2,618 
Other comprehensive loss  --  --  --  --  (6,269) (6,269)
Balance at December 31, 2004  99,868,368 $999 $1,621,756 $13,853 $(14,332)$1,622,276 

Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Net income $55,022 $116,197 $110,052 
Other comprehensive income, net of tax:          
Unrealized holding losses on marketable securities during the period  --  (45) (1,359)
Reclassification adjustment for realized gains on marketable securities
included in net income
  
--
  
(1,518
)
 
--
 
Foreign currency translation adjustment  275  80  63 
Minimum pension liability adjustment  157  (1,122) (2,098)
Unrealized gains on derivative instruments during the period  6,820  8,576  2,853 
Reversal of unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instruments settled
during the period
  
(10,418
)
 
181
  
31,702
 
Deferral related to power cost adjustment mechanism  (3,103) (16,055) -- 
Other comprehensive income (loss)  (6,269) (9,903) 31,161 
Comprehensive income 
$
48,753
 
$
106,294
 
$
141,213
 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
          COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
2001
  Net income  $121,348 $117,883 $106,839 

  Other comprehensive income, net of tax:  
     Unrealized holding losses on marketable securities during the period   (45) (1,359) 1,823)
     Reclassification adjustment for realized gains on marketable securiti    
       included in net income   (1,518) --  (5)
     Foreign currency translation adjustment   80  63  -- 
     Minimum pension liability adjustment   (1,122) (2,098) 5,148)
     Transition adjustment for unrealized gain on derivative instruments a    
       of January 1, 2001   --  --  286,928 
     Unrealized gains (losses) on derivative instruments during the period   8,576  2,853  (131,420)
     Reversal of unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instruments settl    
       during the period   181  31,702  (182,603)
     Deferral related to PCA   (16,055) --  -- 

     Other comprehensive income (loss)   (9,903) 31,161  (34,071)

  Comprehensive income  $111,445 $149,044 $72,768 




Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Operating activities:       
Net income $55,022 $116,197 $110,052 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:          
Depreciation and amortization  246,842  236,866  228,743 
Deferred income taxes and tax credits- net
  72,702  57,470  151,318 
Gain from sale of securities  --  (2,889) -- 
Net unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instruments  (526) 106  (11,612)
Other (including conservation amortization)  10,103  18,683  (18,827)
Cash collateral received from (returned to) energy supplier  6,320  (21,425) 21,425 
Increase (decrease) in residential exchange program  1,668  (25,989) 21,201 
Goodwill impairment  91,196  --  -- 
Pension plan funding  --  (26,521) -- 
Change in certain current assets and liabilities:          
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenue  2,218  37,769  46,860 
Materials and supplies  (22,228) (14,727) 22,088 
Prepayments and other  (8,159) (738) 141 
Purchased gas receivable /liability  (31,073) (71,826) 121,039 
Accounts payable  25,163  6,464  34,351 
Taxes payable  247  13,405  (18,260)
Tenaska disallowance reserve  3,156  --  -- 
Accrued expenses and other  3,709  (4,939) (4,603)
Net cash provided by operating activities  456,360  317,906  703,916 
Investing activities:          
Construction and capital expenditures- excluding equity AFUDC
  (409,403) (285,510) (235,786)
Energy efficiency expenditures  (24,852) (18,579) (11,356)
Restricted cash  905  20,106  (18,871)
Cash received from sale of securities  --  3,161  -- 
Refundable cash received for customer construction projects  13,424  5,045  5,787 
Investments by InfrastruX  --  (10,659) (41,602)
Other  1,747  2,151  (15,761)
Net cash used by investing activities  (418,179) (284,285) (317,589)
Financing activities:          
Decrease in short-term debt- net
  (5,596) (33,402) (301,281)
Dividends paid  (86,873) (86,671) (97,321)
Issuance of common stock  5,413  106,659  120,214 
Issuance of bonds and notes  343,841  319,497  107,518 
Redemption of preferred stock  --  (60,000) -- 
Redemption of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock  --  (41,273) (7,500)
Redemption of trust preferred stock  --  (19,750) -- 
Redemption of bonds and notes  (308,708) (357,510) (119,281)
Other  6,032  (10,359) (4,363)
Net cash used by financing activities  (45,891) (182,809) (302,014)
Increase (decrease) in cash from net income  (7,710) (149,188) 84,313 
Cash at beginning of year  27,481  176,669  92,356 
Cash at end of year $19,771 $27,481 $176,669 
Supplemental Cash Flow Information:
          
Cash payments for:          
Interest (net of capitalized interest) $182,419 $192,845 $200,392 
Income taxes (net refunds)  (1,232) (2,777) (81,652)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Energy Consolidated Statements of
          CASH FLOWS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
2001
  Operating activities:        
     Net income  $121,348 $117,883 $106,839 
     Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash  
        provided by operating activities:  
          Depreciation and amortization   236,866  228,743  217,540 
          Deferred income taxes and tax credits - net   57,470  151,318  11,464 
          Gain from sale of securities   (2,889) --  -- 
          Net unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instrument   106  (11,612) 3,567 
     Other (including conservation amortization)   (7,412) 330  (4,465)
     Cash collateral received from (returned to) energy supplier   (21,425) 21,425  -- 
     Pension plan funding   (26,521) --  -- 
     Change in certain current assets and liabilities  
       Accounts receivable and unbilled revenue   37,769  46,860  147,575 
       Materials and supplies   (14,727) 22,088  10,611 
       Prepayments and other   (738) 141  936 
       Purchased gas receivable (liability)   (71,826) 121,039  58,822 
       Accounts payable   6,464  34,351  (254,944)
       Taxes payable   13,405  (18,260) (33,288)
       Accrued expenses and other   (4,939) (4,603) 33,631 

            Net cash provided by operating activities   322,951  709,703  298,288 

  Investing activities:  
    Construction and capital expenditures - excluding equity AFU   (285,510) (235,786) (252,628)
     Energy conservation expenditures   (18,579) (11,356) (15,591)
     Restricted cash   20,106  (18,871) -- 
     Proceeds from sale of securities   3,161  --  -- 
     Investments by InfrastruX   (10,659) (41,602) (75,591)
     Repayment from Schlumberger   --  --  51,948 
     Other   2,151  (15,761) (16,446)

            Net cash used by investing activities   (289,330) (323,376) (308,308)

  Financing activities:  
     Increase (decrease) in short-term debt - net   (33,402) (301,281) (32,406)
     Dividends paid   (86,671) (97,321) (141,709)
     Issuance of common stock   106,659  120,214  -- 
     Issuance of trust preferred stock   --  --  200,000 
     Issuance of bonds and long-term debt   319,497  107,518  70,250 
     Redemption of preferred stock   (60,000) --  -- 
     Redemption of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock   (41,273) (7,500) (7,500)
     Redemption of trust preferred stock   (19,750) --  -- 
     Redemption of bonds and notes   (357,510) (119,281) (19,000)
     Other   (10,359) (4,363) (3,642)

            Net cash provided (used) by financing activities   (182,809) (302,014) 65,993 

  Increase (decrease) in cash from net income   (149,188) 84,313  55,973 
  Cash at beginning of year   176,669  92,356  36,383 

  Cash at end of year  $27,481 $176,669 $92,356 

  Supplemental Cash Flow Information:  
  Cash payments for:  
    Interest (net of capitalized interest)  $192,845 $200,392 $191,004 
    Income taxes (net of refunds)   (2,777) (81,652) 87,470 



Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Operating revenues:       
Electric $1,423,034 $1,400,743 $1,288,744 
Gas  769,306  634,230  697,155 
Other  6,537  6,043  9,753 
Total operating revenues  2,198,877  2,041,016  1,995,652 
Operating expenses:          
Energy costs:          
Purchased electricity  723,567  714,469  568,230 
Electric generation fuel  80,772  64,999  113,538 
Residential exchange  (174,473) (173,840) (149,970)
Purchased gas  451,302  327,132  405,016 
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments  (526) 106  (11,612)
Utility operations and maintenance  291,232  289,702  286,220 
Other operations and maintenance  1,342  1,203  1,602 
Depreciation and amortization  228,566  220,087  215,317 
Conservation amortization  22,688  33,458  17,501 
Taxes other than income taxes  208,989  194,857  202,381 
Income taxes  77,177  70,939  52,836 
Total operating expenses  1,910,636  1,743,112  1,701,059 
Operating income  288,241  297,904  294,593 
Other income (deductions):          
Other income  4,362  1,587  5,215 
Interest charges:          
AFUDC  5,420  3,343  1,969 
Interest expense  (171,740) (181,707) (192,829)
Mandatorily redeemable securities interest expense  (91) (1,072) -- 
Net income before cumulative effect of accounting change  126,192  120,055  108,948 
Cumulative effect of implementation of accounting change (net of tax)  --  169  -- 
Net income  126,192  119,886  108,948 
Less: preferred stock dividends accrual  --  5,151  7,831 
Income for common stock $126,192 $114,735 $101,117 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
          INCOME
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
2001
  Operating revenues:        
  Electric  $1,509,463 $1,365,885 $1,865,227 
  Gas   634,230  697,155  815,071 
  Other   6,043  9,753  32,476 

       Total operating revenues   2,149,736  2,072,793  2,712,774 

  Operating expenses:  
  Energy costs:  
    Purchased electricity   823,189  645,371  918,676 
    Residential exchange   (173,840) (149,970) (75,864)
    Purchased gas   327,132  405,016  537,431 
    Electric generation fuel   64,999  113,538  281,405 
    Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments   106  (11,612) (11,182)
  Utility operations and maintenance   289,702  286,220  265,789 
  Other operations and maintenance   1,203  1,602  8,546 
  Depreciation and amortization   220,087  215,317  208,720 
  Conservation amortization   33,458  17,501  6,493 
  Taxes other than income taxes   194,857  202,381  207,365 
  Income taxes   70,939  52,836  76,915 

       Total operating expenses   1,851,832  1,778,200  2,424,294 

  Operating income   297,904  294,593  288,480 
  Other income   1,587  5,215  17,053 

  Income before interest charges   299,491  299,808  305,533 

  Interest charges:  
    AFUDC   (3,343) (1,969) (4,446)
    Interest expense   181,707  192,829  190,849 
    Mandatorily redeemable securities interest expense   1,072  --  -- 

       Total interest charges   179,436  190,860  186,403 

  Net income before cumulative effect of accounting change   120,055  108,948  119,130 
  Cumulative effect of implementation of accounting change (net of ta   169  --  14,749 

  Net income   119,886  108,948  104,381 
  Less preferred stock dividends accrual   5,151  7,831  8,413 

  Income for common stock  $114,735 $101,117 $95,968 



Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
Utility plant:     
Electric plant $4,389,882 $4,265,908 
Gas plant  1,881,768  1,749,102 
Common plant  409,677  390,622 
Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization  (2,452,969) (2,325,405)
Net utility plant  4,228,358  4,080,227 
Other property and investments  157,670  160,280 
Current assets:       
Cash  12,955  14,778 
Restricted cash  1,633  2,537 
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts  138,792  155,649 
Unbilled revenues  140,391  131,798 
Purchased gas adjustment receivable  19,088  -- 
Materials and supplies, at average cost  97,578  77,206 
Current portion of unrealized gain on derivative instruments  8,087  7,593 
Prepayments and other  6,247  6,285 
Total current assets  424,771  395,846 
Other long-term assets:       
Regulatory asset for deferred income taxes  127,252  142,792 
Regulatory asset for PURPA buyout costs  211,241  227,753 
Unrealized gain on derivative instruments  13,765  8,624 
Power cost adjustment mechanism  --  3,605 
Other  401,030  339,977 
Total other long-term assets  753,288  722,751 
Total assets $5,564,087 $5,359,104 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
          ASSETS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
  Utility plant:      
    Electric plant  $4,265,908 $4,229,352 
    Gas plant   1,749,102  1,645,865 
    Common plant   390,622  378,844 
    Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization   (2,325,405) (2,223,190)

        Net utility plant   4,080,227  4,030,871 

  Other property and investments:  
    Investment in Bonneville Exchange Power Contract   47,609  51,136 
    Non-utility property, net   2,150  1,699 
    Other   110,521  101,922 

        Total other property and investments   160,280  154,757 

  Current assets:  
    Cash   14,778  161,475 
    Restricted cash   2,537  18,871 
    Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful account   155,649  208,702 
    Unbilled revenues   131,798  112,115 
    Materials and supplies, at average cost   77,206  63,563 
    Current portion of unrealized gain on derivative instrumen   7,593  3,741 
    Prepayments and other   6,285  8,907 

        Total current assets   395,846  577,374 

  Other long-term assets:  
    Regulatory asset for deferred income taxes   142,792  167,058 
    Regulatory asset for PURPA buyout costs   227,753  243,584 
    Unrealized gain on derivative instruments   8,624  9,870 
    PCA mechanism   3,605  -- 
    Other   315,660  269,876 

      Total other long-term assets   698,434  690,388 

  Total assets  $5,334,787 $5,453,390 



Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
Capitalization:     
(See Consolidated Statements of Capitalization):
     
Common equity $1,592,433 $1,555,469 
Total shareholders’ equity  1,592,433  1,555,469 
Redeemable securities and long-term debt:       
Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption  1,889  1,889 
Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding
mandatorily redeemable preferred securities
  
280,250
  
280,250
 
Long-term debt  2,064,360  1,950,347 
Total redeemable securities and long-term debt  2,346,499  2,232,486 
Total capitalization  3,938,932  3,787,955 
Current liabilities:       
Accounts payable  229,747  206,465 
Current maturities of long-term debt  31,000  102,658 
Purchased gas adjustment liability  --  11,984 
Accrued expenses:       
Taxes  81,634  82,342 
Salaries and wages  13,829  12,712 
Interest  29,005  32,954 
Current portion of unrealized loss on derivative instruments  19,261  3,636 
Tenaska disallowance reserve  3,156  -- 
Other  34,918  26,514 
Total current liabilities  442,550  479,265 
Long-term liabilities:       
Deferred income taxes  787,179  731,944 
Long-term portion of unrealized loss on derivative instruments  249  -- 
Other deferred credits  395,177  359,940 
Total long-term liabilities  1,182,605  1,091,884 
Commitments and contingencies       
Total capitalization and liabilities $5,564,087 $5,359,104 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.statements

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Balance Sheets
           CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
  Capitalization:      
  (See Consolidated Statements of Capitalization):  
     Common equity  $1,555,469 $1,426,121 
     Preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption   --  60,000 

       Total shareholders' equity   1,555,469  1,486,121 

  Redeemable securities and long-term debt:  
     Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption   1,889  43,162 
    Corporation obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred  
      securities of subsidiary trust holding solely junior  
      subordinated debentures of the corporation   --  300,000 
    Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a  
     subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securiti   280,250  -- 
     Long-term debt   1,950,347  2,021,832 

       Total redeemable securities and long-term debt   2,232,486  2,364,994 

       Total capitalization   3,787,955  3,851,115 

  Current liabilities:  
     Accounts payable   206,465  193,602 
     Short-term debt   --  30,340 
     Current maturities of long-term debt   102,658  72,000 
     Purchased gas liability   11,984  83,811 
     Accrued expenses:  
       Taxes   82,342  64,433 
       Salaries and wages   12,712  11,441 
       Interest   32,954  37,942 
     Current portion of unrealized loss on derivative instruments   3,636  2,410 
     Other   26,514  25,456 

       Total current liabilities   479,265  521,435 

  Long-term liabilities:  
     Deferred income taxes   731,944  715,579 
     Other deferred credits   335,623  365,261 

       Total long-term liabilities   1,067,567  1,080,840 

  Commitments and contingencies   --  -- 

  Total capitalization and liabilities  $5,334,787 $5,453,390 



The accompanying notes are an integral partTable of the consolidated financial statements.Contents

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
          CAPITALIZATION
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
  Common equity:      
    Common stock ($10 stated value) - 150,000,000 shares  
     authorized, 85,903,791 shares outstanding  $859,038 $859,038 
    Additional paid-in capital   604,451  498,335 
    Earnings reinvested in the business   100,186  66,971 
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) - net   (8,206) 1,777 

       Total common equity   1,555,469  1,426,121 

  Preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption - cumulative - $25 par value    
     7.45% series II - 2,400,000 shares authorized, 0 and 2,400,000 shares outstandi    
    at December 31, 2003 and 2002   --  60,000 

       Total preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption   --  60,000 

  Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption - cumulative  
    $100 par value:*  
      4.84% series - 150,000 shares authorized,  
         14,583 and 14,808 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003 and 2002   1,458  1,481 
      4.70% series - 150,000 shares authorized,  
          4,311 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003 and 2002   431  431 
      7.75% series - 750,000 shares authorized,  
           0 and 412,500 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003 and 2002   --  41,250 

       Total preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption   1,889  43,162 

  Corporation obligated mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary  
    trust holding solely junior subordinated debentures of the corporation   --  300,000 
  Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust  
    holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities   280,250  -- 

  Long-term debt:  
    First mortgage bonds and senior notes   1,891,158  1,932,000 
    Pollution control revenue bonds:  
      Revenue refunding 1991 series, due 2021   --  50,900 
      Revenue refunding 1992 series, due 2022   --  87,500 
      Revenue refunding 1993 series, due 2020   --  23,460 
      Revenue refunding 2003 series, due 2031   161,860  -- 
    Unamortized discount - net of premium   (13) (28)
    Long-term debt due within one year   (102,658) (72,000)

      Total long-term debt excluding current maturities   1,950,347  2,021,832 

  Total capitalization  $3,787,955 $3,851,115 


Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
Common equity:     
Common stock ($10 stated value)- 150,000,000 shares authorized, 85,903,791 shares
outstanding.
 
$
859,038
 
$
859,038
 
Additional paid-in capital  609,467  604,451 
Earnings reinvested in the business  138,678  100,186 
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) - net of tax  (14,750) (8,206)
Total common equity  1,592,433  1,555,469 
Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption - cumulative
$100 par value:*
       
4.84% series- 150,000 shares authorized,
14,583 shares outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2003
  
1,458
  
1,458
 
4.70% series- 150,000 shares authorized,
4,311 shares outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2003
  
431
  
431
 
Total preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption  1,889  1,889 
Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding
mandatorily redeemable preferred securities
  
280,250
  
280,250
 
Long-term debt:       
First mortgage bonds and senior notes  1,933,500  1,891,158 
Pollution control revenue bonds:       
Revenue refunding 2003 series, due 2031  161,860  161,860 
Unamortized discount- net of premium
  --  (13)
Long-term debt due within one year  (31,000) (102,658)
Total long-term debt excluding current maturities  2,064,360  1,950,347 
Total capitalization $3,938,932 $3,787,955 

*13,000,000 shares authorized for $25 par value preferred stock and 3,000,000 shares authorized for $100 par value
preferred stock.stock, both of which are available for issuance under mandatory and non-mandatory redemption provisions.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
           COMMON SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
 Common Stock
Additional Accumulated
Other
 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003, 2002 AND 2001

Shares
Amount
Paid-in
Capital

Retained
Earnings

Comprehensive
Income

Total Amount
  Balance at December 31, 2000   85,903,791 $859,038 $470,179 $92,673 $4,750 $1,426,640 
  Net income   --  --  --  104,381  --  104,381 
  Preferred stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (8,485) --  (8,485)
  Common stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (133,224) --  (133,224)
  Return of capital to Puget Energy   --  --  (86,556) --  --  (86,556)
  Other   --  --  (1,031) --  --  (1,031)
  Other comprehensive income   --  --  --  --  (34,071) (34,071)

  Balance at December 31, 2001   85,903,791 $859,038 $382,592 $55,345 $(29,321)$1,267,654 
  Net income   --  --  --  108,948  --  108,948 
  Preferred stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (7,904) --  (7,904)
  Common stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (89,418) --  (89,418)
  Investment received from Puget Ener   --  --  115,736  --  --  115,736 
  Other   --  --  7  --  --  7 
  Other comprehensive income   --  --  --  --  31,098  31,098 

  Balance at December 31, 2002   85,903,791 $859,038 $498,335 $66,971 $1,777 $1,426,121 
  Net income   --  --  --  119,886  --  119,886 
  Preferred stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (5,562) --  (5,562)
  Common stock dividend declared   --  --  --  (81,109) --  (81,109)
  Investment received from Puget Ener   --  --  106,124  --  --  106,124 
  Other   --  --  (8) --  --  (8)
  Other comprehensive income   --  --  --  --  (9,983) (9,983)

  Balance at December 31, 2003   85,903,791 $859,038 $604,451 $100,186 $(8,206)$1,555,469 


Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
Common Stock
 
 
Additional
   
Accumulated
Other
   
FOR YEARS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2004, 2003 & 2002
 
 
Shares
 
 
Amount
 
Paid-in
Capital
 
Retained
Earnings
 
Comprehensive
Income
 Total Amount 
Balance at December 31, 2001  85,903,791 $859,038 $382,592 $55,345 $(29,321)$1,267,654 
Net income  --  --  --  108,948  --  108,948 
Preferred stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (7,904) --  (7,904)
Common stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (89,418) --  (89,418)
Investment received from Puget Energy  --  --  115,736  --  --  115,736 
Other  --  --  7  --  --  7 
Other comprehensive income  --  --  --  --  31,098  31,098 
                    
Balance at December 31, 2002  85,903,791 $859,038 $498,335 $66,971 $1,777 $1,426,121 
Net income  --  --  --  119,886  --  119,886 
Preferred stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (5,562) --  (5,562)
Common stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (81,109) --  (81,109)
Investment received from Puget Energy  --  --  106,124  --  --  106,124 
Other  --  --  (8) --  --  (8)
Other comprehensive loss  --  --  --  --  (9,983) (9,983)
                    
Balance at December 31, 2003  85,903,791 $859,038 $604,451 $100,186 $(8,206)$1,555,469 
Net income  --  --  --  126,192  --  126,192 
Common stock dividend declared  --  --  --  (87,700) --  (87,700)
Investment received from Puget Energy  --  --  5,016  --  --  5,016 
Other comprehensive loss  --  --  --  --  (6,544) (6,544)
Balance at December 31, 2004  85,903,791 $859,038 $609,467 $138,678 $(14,750)$1,592,433 

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Net income $126,192 $119,886 $108,948 
Other comprehensive income, net of tax:          
Unrealized holding losses on marketable securities during the period  --  (45) (1,359)
Reclassification adjustment for realized gains on marketable securities
included in net income
  
--
  
(1,518
)
 
--
 
Minimum pension liability adjustment  157  (1,122) (2,098)
Unrealized gains on derivative instruments during the period  6,820  8,576  2,853 
Reversal of unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instruments settled
during the period
  
(10,418
)
 
181
  
31,702
 
Deferral related to power cost adjustment mechanism  (3,103) (16,055) -- 
Other comprehensive income (loss)  (6,544) (9,983) 31,098 
Comprehensive income 
$
119,648
 
$
109,903
 
$
140,046
 

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
           COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
2001
  Net income  $119,886 $108,948 $104,381 

  Other comprehensive income, net of tax:  
     Unrealized holding losses on marketable securities during the period   (45) (1,359) (1,823)
     Reclassification adjustment for realized gains on marketable securiti    
      included in net income   (1,518) --  (5)
     Minimum pension liability adjustment   (1,122) (2,098) (5,148)
     Transition adjustment for unrealized gain on derivative instruments    
      January 1, 2001   --  --  286,928 
     Unrealized gains (losses) on derivative instruments during the period   8,576  2,853  (131,420)
     Reversal of unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instruments settl    
      during the period   181  31,702  (182,603)
       Deferral related to PCA   (16,055) --  -- 

      Other comprehensive income (loss)   (9,983) 31,098  (34,071)

  Comprehensive income  $109,903 $140,046 $70,310 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
          CASH FLOWS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

2003
2002
2001
  Operating activities:        
     Net income  $119,886 $108,948 $104,381 
     Adjustments to reconcile net income  
       to net cash provided by operating activities:  
          Depreciation and amortization   220,087  215,317  208,720 
          Deferred federal income taxes and tax credits - net   49,276  140,536  7,151 
          Gain from sale of securities   (2,889) --  -- 
          Net unrealized (gains) losses on derivative instrumen   106  (11,612) 3,567 
     Other (including conservation amortization)   (6,353) 18,711  2,375 
    Cash collateral received from (returned to) energy supplier   (21,425) 21,425  -- 
    Pension plan funding   (26,521) --  -- 
    Change in certain current assets and current liabilities:  
       Accounts receivable and unbilled revenue   33,370  61,539  148,393 
       Materials and supplies   (13,643) 21,755  8,460 
       Prepayments and other   2,622  (1,501) 2,507 
       Purchased gas receivable (liability)   (71,826) 121,039  58,822 
       Accounts payable   12,863  38,893  (247,931)
       Taxes payable   17,910  (13,646) (33,785)
       Accrued expenses and other   (4,120) 277  21,952 

            Net cash provided by operating activities   309,343  721,681  284,612 

  Investing activities:  
    Construction expenditures - excluding equity AFUDC   (269,973) (224,165) (247,435)
    Energy conservation expenditures   (18,579) (11,356) (15,591)
    Restricted cash   20,106  (18,871) -- 
    Proceeds from sale of securities   3,161  --  -- 
    Repayment from Schlumberger   --  --  51,948 
    Other   3,671  (14,472) (16,446)

            Net cash used by investing activities   (261,614) (268,864) (227,524)

  Financing activities:  
     Decrease in short-term debt - net   (30,340) (307,828) (38,845)
     Dividends paid   (86,671) (97,321) (141,709)
     Issuance of bonds   304,465  40,000  -- 
     Issuance of trust preferred stock   --  --  200,000 
     Redemption of preferred stock   (60,000) --  -- 
     Redemption of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock   (41,273) (7,500) (7,500)
     Redemption of trust preferred stock   (19,750) --  -- 
     Redemption of bonds and notes   (356,860) (117,000) (19,000)
    Investment from Puget Energy   106,124  115,736  -- 
     Other   (10,121) (137) (3,709)

            Net cash used by financing activities   (194,426) (374,050) (10,763)

  Increase (decrease) in cash from net income   (146,697) 78,767  46,325 
  Cash at beginning of year   161,475  82,708  36,383 

  Cash at end of year  $14,778 $161,475 $82,708 

  Supplemental Cash Flow Information:  
  Cash payments for:  
    Interest (net of capitalized interest)  $187,256 $194,876 $187,347 
    Income taxes (net of refunds)   (1,456) (81,973) 87,020 



Puget Sound Energy Consolidated Statements of
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS
FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Operating activities:       
Net income $126,192 $119,886 $108,948 
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
          
Depreciation and amortization  228,566  220,087  215,317 
Deferred federal income taxes and tax credits- net
  72,446  49,276  140,536 
Gain from sale of securities  --  (2,889) -- 
Net unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments  (526) 106  (11,612)
Other (including conservation amortization)  20,806  14,591  (8,277)
Cash collateral received from (returned to) energy suppliers  6,320  (21,425) 21,425 
Increase (decrease) in Residential Exchange Program  1,668  (25,989) 21,201 
Pension plan funding  --  (26,521) -- 
Change in certain current assets and current liabilities:          
Accounts receivable and unbilled revenue  8,264  33,370  61,539 
Materials and supplies  (20,372) (13,643) 21,755 
Prepayments and other  38  2,622  (1,501)
Purchased gas receivable / liability  (31,073) (71,826) 121,039 
Accounts payable  23,282  12,863  38,893 
Taxes payable  (707) 17,910  (13,646)
Tenaska disallowance reserve  3,156  --  -- 
Accrued expenses and other  (2,664) (4,120) 277 
Net cash provided by operating activities  435,396  304,298  715,894 
Investing activities:          
Construction expenditures- excluding equity AFUDC
  (393,891) (269,973) (224,165)
Energy efficiency expenditures  (24,852) (18,579) (11,356)
Restricted cash  905  20,106  (18,871)
Cash received from sale of securities  --  3,161  -- 
Refundable cash received for customer construction projects  13,424  5,045  5,787 
Other  1,444  3,671  (14,472)
Net cash used by investing activities  (402,970) (256,569) (263,077)
Financing activities:          
Decrease in short-term debt- net
  --  (30,340) (307,828)
Dividends paid  (87,700) (86,671) (97,321)
Issuance of bonds and notes  200,000  304,465  40,000 
Redemption of preferred stock  --  (60,000) -- 
Redemption of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock  --  (41,273) (7,500)
Redemption of trust preferred stock  --  (19,750) -- 
Redemption of bonds and notes  (157,658) (356,860) (117,000)
Investment from Puget Energy  5,016  106,124  115,736 
Other  6,093  (10,121) (137)
Net cash used by financing activities  (34,249) (194,426) (374,050)
Increase (decrease) in cash from net income  (1,823) (146,697) 78,767 
Cash at beginning of year  14,778  161,475  82,708 
Cash at end of year $12,955 $14,778 $161,475 
Supplemental Cash Flow Information:
          
Cash payments for:          
Interest (net of capitalized interest) $175,772 $187,256 $194,876 
Income taxes (net refunds)  (1,042) (1,456) (81,973)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.



To Consolidated Financial Statements of Puget Energy and Puget Sound Energy


NOTE 1.
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies


BASIS OF PRESENTATION
Puget Energy is an exempt public utility holding company under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Puget Energy owns Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and ishas a majority owner of90.9% ownership interest in InfrastruX Group, Inc. (InfrastruX). PSE is a public utility incorporated in the State of Washington furnishingand furnishes electric and gas serviceservices in a territory covering 6,000 square miles, primarily in the Puget Sound region. InfrastruX is a non-regulated construction service company incorporated in the State of Washington, which provides construction services to the electric and gas utility industries primarily in the south/Midwest, Texas, north-centralsouth-central and eastern United States.
States regions.
The consolidated financial statements of Puget Energy include the accounts of Puget Energy and its subsidiaries, PSE and InfrastruX. Puget Energy holds all the common shares of PSE and holds a majority90.9% interest in InfrastruX. The results of PSE and InfrastruX are presented on a consolidated basis. PSE’s consolidated financial statements include the accounts of PSE and its subsidiaries. Puget Energy and PSE are collectively referred to herein as “the Company.” The consolidated financial statements are presented after elimination of all significant intercompany items and transactions. Minority interests of InfrastruX’s operating results are reflected in Puget Energy’s consolidated financial statements. Certain amounts previously reported have been reclassified to conform with current-yearcurrent year presentations with no effect on total equity or net income.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.


UTILITY PLANT
The costscost of additions to utility plant, including renewals and betterments, are capitalized at original cost. Costs include indirect costs such as engineering, supervision, certain taxes, pension and other employee benefits, and an allowance for funds used during construction. Replacements of minor items of property are included in maintenance expense. The original cost of operating property is charged to accumulated depreciation and costs associated with removal of property, less salvage, is charged to the cost of removal regulatory liability when the property is retired and removed from service.


NON-UTILITY PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
The costs of other property, plant and equipment are stated at cost. Expenditures for refurbishment and improvements that significantly add to productive capacity or extend useful life of an asset are capitalized. Replacement of minor items is expensed, on a current basis. Gains and losses on assets sold or retired are reflected in earnings.


ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS
The Company evaluates impairment of long-lived assets in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.” SFAS No. 144 establishes accounting standards for determining if long-lived assets are impaired and how losses, if any, should be recognized. The Company believes that the net cash flows are sufficient to cover the carrying value of its assets.




DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION
For financial statement purposes, the Company provides for depreciation and amortization on a straight-line basis. Amortization is comprised of software, small tools and office equipment. The depreciation of automobiles, trucks, power-operated equipment and tools is allocated to asset and expense accounts based on usage. The annual depreciation provision stated as a percent of average original cost of depreciable electric utility plant was 2.9% in 2004, 2003 2.9% in 2002 and 3.0% in 2001;2002; depreciable gas utility plant was 3.4% in 2004, 3.5% in 2003 and 3.3% in 2002 and 3.5% in 2001;2002; and depreciable common utility plant was 4.6% in 2004, 4.7% in 2003 and 4.3% in 2002 and 3.1% in 2001.2002. Depreciation on other property, plant and equipment is calculated primarily on a straight-line basis over the useful lives of the assets ranging from 3 to 50 years.

assets.


CASH
All liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase are considered cash. The Company maintains cash deposits in excess of insured limits with certain financial institutions.


RESTRICTED CASH
Restricted cash represents cash to be used for specific purposes. The restricted cash balance was $1.6 million at December 31, 2004. Approximately $1.1 million in restricted cash represents funds held by Puget Western, Inc., a PSE subsidiary, for a real estate development project. Approximately $0.4 million represents funds held for payment of principal and interest for conservation trust debt and approximately $0.1 million represents payments from the Bonneville Power Administration under the Residential and Farm Energy Exchange Benefit Credit program in excess of credits provided to customers.

MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES
Material and supplies consists primarily of materials and supplies used in the operation and maintenance of the electric and gas systems, coal, diesel and natural gas held for generation, and natural gas and liquefied natural gas held in storage for future sales. These items are recorded at the lower of cost or market value, primarily using the weighted average cost method.



REGULATORY ASSETS AND AGREEMENTS
LIABILITIES
The Company accounts for its regulated operations in accordance with SFAS No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation.” SFAS No. 71 requires the Company to defer certain costs that would otherwise be charged to expense, if it is probable that future rates will permit recovery of such costs. Accounting under SFAS No. 71 is appropriate as long as:as rates are established by or subject to approval by independent third-party regulators; rates are designed to recover the specific enterprise’s cost of service; and in view of demand for service, it is reasonable to assume that rates set at levels that will recover costs can be charged to and collected from customers. In applying SFAS No. 71, the Company must give consideration to changes in the level of demand or competition during the cost recovery period. In accordance with SFAS No. 71, the Company capitalizes certain costs in accordance with regulatory authority whereby those costs will be expensed and recovered in future periods.
The Company is allowed a return on the net regulatory assets and liabilities of 8.76%8.75% for electric rates beginning July 1, 2002 and gas rates beginning September 1, 2002. The 2001 allowed rate of return was 8.94% for electric rates and 9.15% for gas rates. The net regulatory assets and liabilities at December 31, 20032004 and 20022003 included the following:

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
REMAINING
AMORTIZATION
PERIOD

2003
2002
  PURPA electric energy supply contract buyout costs  5 to 8 years  $227.8$243.6
  Deferred income taxes      142.8 167.1
  Investment in Bonneville Exchange Power contract  13 years   47.6 51.1
  Environmental remediation  *   41.5 41.6
  Deferred AFUDC  30 years   30.3 29.9
  Tree watch costs  10 years   29.0 26.5
  Storm damage costs - electric  4 years   26.0 21.9
  White River relicensing and other costs  *   20.8 --
  Colstrip common property  20 years   14.6 15.3
  PCA mechanism  *   3.6 --
  Cost of removal  **   (124.9) (114.6)
  Various other regulatory assets  1 to 21 years   23.4 27.8
  Deferred gains on property sales  3 years   (10.1) (14.4)
  Purchased gas payable  1 year   (5.4) (83.8)
  Various other regulatory liabilities  1 to 17 years   (5.2) (5.9)

  Net regulatory assets and liabilities     $461.8$406.1




 
 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
REMAINING
AMORTIZATION
PERIOD
 
 
 
2004
 
 
 
2003
 
PURPA electric energy supply contract buyout costs  4 to 7 years $211.2 $227.8 
Deferred income taxes  ***  127.3  142.8 
White River relicensing and other costs  *  65.3  20.8 
Investment in Bonneville Exchange Power contract  12 years  44.1  47.6 
Environmental remediation  *  42.3  41.6 
Deferred AFUDC  30 years  30.4  30.3 
Tree watch costs  10 years  28.3  29.0 
Storm damage costs- electric
  3.5 years  21.1  26.0 
Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA) receivable  *  19.1  -- 
Colstrip common property  19 years  13.9  14.6 
PGA deferral of unrealized losses on derivative instruments  ***  12.1  3.3 
Various other regulatory assets  1 to 26 years  30.2  23.1 
Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) mechanism  *  --  3.6 
Cost of removal  **  (132.4) (124.9)
PCA deferral of unrealized gain on derivative instrument  *  (30.8) (24.3)
Gas Supply contract settlement  3.5 year  (10.1) -- 
Deferred gains on property sales  3 years  (4.5) (10.1)
Tenaska disallowance reserve  1 year  (3.2) -- 
Purchased Gas Adjustment payable  ***  --  (12.0)
Various other regulatory liabilities  1 to 22 years  (4.7) (5.4)
Net regulatory assets and liabilities    $459.6 $433.8 

*Amortization period to be determined.
**The balance is dependent upon the cost of removal of underlying assets and the life of utility plant.

***Amortization period varies depending on timing of underlying transactions.

If the Company, at some point in the future, determines that all or a portion of the utility operations no longer meet the criteria for continued application of SFAS No. 71, the Company would be required to adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 101, “Regulated Enterprises - Accounting for the Discontinuation of Application of FASB Statement No. 71.” Adoption of SFAS No. 101 would require the Company to write off the regulatory assets and liabilities related to those operations not meeting SFAS No. 71 requirements. Discontinuation of SFAS No. 71 could have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.
        Included within the regulatory assets are deferred costs associated with gas supply contracts with Tenaska and Cabot of $216.7 million and $11.0 million, respectively, at December 31, 2003. These regulatory assets were designed to be recovered in future rates. In the power cost only rate case, the Washington Commission staff has identified a portion of these assets as a possible disallowance for future rate recovery based on an interpretation of a 1994 Washington Commission order by the Washington Commission staff. The Company believes the disallowance proposed by the Washington Commission staff is legally and actually deficient. The power cost only rate case order from the Washington Commission is expected in mid-April 2004.
In accordance with guidance provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company reclassified from accumulated depreciation to a regulatory liability $132.4 million and $124.9 million in 2004 and $114.6 million in 2003, and 2002, respectively, for non-legal cost of removal for utility plant. These amounts are collected from PSE’s customers through depreciation expense.

rates.


ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION
The Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) represents the cost of both the debt and equity funds used to finance utility plant additions during the construction period. The amount of AFUDC recorded in each accounting period varies depending principally upon the level of construction work in progress and the AFUDC rate used. AFUDC is capitalized as a part of the cost of utility plant and is credited as a non-cash item to other income and interest charges currently. Cash inflow related to AFUDC does not occur until these charges are reflected in rates.


The AFUDC rate allowed by the Washington Commission for gas utility plant additions was 8.76% beginning September 1, 2002 and 9.15% in 2001. The allowed AFUDC rate on electric utility plant was 8.76% beginning July 1, 2002 and 8.94% in 2001. To the extent amounts calculated using this rate exceed the AFUDC calculated rate using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) formula, the Company capitalizes the excess as a deferred asset, crediting miscellaneous income. The amounts included in income were $1.4 million for 2004, $1.6 million for 2003 and $2.6 million for 2002 and $2.7 million for 2001.2002. The deferred asset is being amortized over the average useful life of the Company’s non-project utility plant.

OTHER COMPREHENSIVE
Items present in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for Puget Energy and PSE are presented net of applicable tax at a 35% statutory rate.

REVENUE RECOGNITION
Operating utility revenues are recorded on the basis of service rendered, which includes estimated unbilled revenue. Sales to other utilities are recorded on a net service rendered basis in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (EITF) Issue No. 03-11 “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03.” Non-utility subsidiaries recognize revenue when services are performed, upon the sale of assets or on a percent of completion basis for fixed priced contracts.


ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS
        Allowance
An allowance for doubtful accounts is calculatedprovided for energy customer accounts based upon a historical experience rate of write-offs of energy accounts receivable as compared to operating revenues. The allowance account is adjusted monthly for this experience rate. Energy accounts are considered past due 15 business days after the billing cycle. Once an account is past due, a 1% late payment fee is accrued per month for each month an account is past due. When an account is past due, the Company may assist the customer with the use of special payment arrangements. If no payment arrangements are made or if no contact is made from the customer, the Company has alsothe option of stopping service. Once service is stopped or the customer leaves the service area, a final bill is mailed. Energy accounts are deemed uncollectible 74 business days after the final bill due date and are written off against the allowance account. The late payment fee continues to be accrued on past due accounts until they are written off.
Other non-energy receivable balances are reserved for in the allowance account based on facts and circumstances surrounding the receivable indicating some or all of the balance is uncollectible. Once exhaustive efforts have been made to collect these other receivables, the allowance account and corresponding receivable balance are written off.
The Company has provided for a $41.5 million reserve for fiscal 2000 sales transactions related to the California Independent System Operator and counterparties based upon probability of collection.
Puget Energy’s allowance for doubtful accounts for 2004 and 2003 and 2002 was $45.8$46.0 million and $45.4$45.8 million, respectively. PSE’s allowance for doubtful accounts for 2004 and 2003 was $44.2 million and 2002 was $44.0 million, and $43.5 million, respectively.

RESTRICTED CASHrespectively


        Restricted cash represents cash to be used for specific purposes. Approximately $1.1 million in restricted cash represents funds held by Puget Western, a PSE subsidiary, for a real estate development project that a city requires to ensure work is completed either by the Company or by the city. Approximately $1.4 million in restricted cash represents funds held for payment of principal and interest for conservation trust debt.

SELF-INSURANCE
The Company currently has no insurance coverage for storm damage and is self-insured for a portion of the risk associated with comprehensive liability, workers’ compensation claims and catastrophic property losses other than storm related. With approval of the Washington Commission, PSE is able to defer for collection in future rates certain uninsured storm damage costs associated with major storms.


FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
The Company normalizes, with the approval of the Washington Commission, certain income tax items. Deferred taxes have been determined under SFAS No. 109. Investment tax credits are deferred and amortized based on the average useful life of the related property in accordance with regulatory and income tax requirements. (See Note 11.)

12).


ENERGY CONSERVATION
EFFICIENCY
The Company offers programs designed to help new and existing customers use energy efficiently. The primary emphasis is to provide information and technical services to enable customers to make energy efficient choices with respect to building design, equipment and building systems, appliance purchases and operating practices.
Since May 1997, the Company has recovered electric energy conservationefficiency expenditures through a tariff rider mechanism. The rider mechanism allows the Company to defer the conservationefficiency expenditures and amortize them to expense as PSE concurrently collects the conservationefficiency expenditures in rates over a one-year period. As a result of the rider there ismechanism, electric energy efficiency expenditures have no effectimpact on earnings per share.
earnings.
Since 1995, the Company has been authorized by the Washington Commission to defer gas energy conservationefficiency expenditures and recover them through a tariff tracker mechanism. The tracker mechanism allows the Company to defer conservationefficiency expenditures and recover them in rates over the subsequent year. The tracker mechanism also allows the Company to recover an Allowance for Funds Used to Conserve Energy (AFUCE) on any outstanding balance that is not being recovered in rates.

As a result of the tracker mechanism, gas energy efficiency expenditures have no impact on earnings.

Energy efficiency programs reduce customer consumption of energy thus impacting energy margins. The impact of load reductions are adjusted in rates at each general rate case.

RATE ADJUSTMENT MECHANISMS
The Company has a power cost adjustment (PCA) mechanism that provides for an automatic rate adjustment if PSE’s costs to provide customers’ electricity falls outside certain bands from a normalized level of power costs established in the electric general rate case. The Company’s cumulative maximum pre-tax earnings exposure due to power cost variations over the four-year period ending June 30, 2006 is limited to $40 million plus 1% of the excess. All significant variable power supply cost drivers are included in the PCA mechanism (hydroelectric generation variability, market price variability for purchased power and surplus power sales, natural gas and coal fuel price variability, generation unit forced outage risk and wheeling cost variability). The PCA mechanism apportions increases or decreases in power costs, on a graduated scale, between PSE and its customers. Any unrealized gains and losses from derivative instruments accounted for under SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” are deferred in proportion to the cost-sharing arrangement under the PCA mechanism once the Company reaches its cap of $40 million.



The graduated scale is as follows:

ANNUAL POWER COST VARIABILITYCUSTOMERS' SHARE
COMPANY'S SHARE1
+/- $20 million0%100%
+/- $20 million - $40 million50%50%
+/- $40 million - $120 million90%10%
+/- $120+ million95%5%
_______________________
1  
Over the four-year period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006 the Company’s share of pre-tax cost variation is capped at a cumulative $40 million plus 1% of the excess. Power cost variation after June 30, 2006 will be apportioned on an annual basis, based on the graduated scale.

The differences between the actual cost of the Company’sPSE’s gas supplies and gas transportation contracts and that currently allowed by the Washington Commission are deferred and recovered or repaid through the purchased gas adjustment (PGA) mechanism.

The graduated scale isPGA mechanism allows PSE to recover expected gas costs, and defer, as follows:

Annual Power Cost Variability
Customer’s Share
Company's Share1
+/- $20 million 0%100%
+/- $20 million - $40 million 50%50%
+/- $40 million - $120 million 90%10%
+/- $120+ million 95%5%
a receivable or liability, any gas costs that exceed or fall short of this expected gas cost amount in PGA mechanism rates, including interest.

NATURAL GAS OFF-SYSTEM SALES AND CAPACITY RELEASE
The Company contracts for firm gas supplies and holds firm transportation and storage capacity sufficient to meet the expected peak winter demand for gas for space heating by its firm customers. Due to the variability in weather, winter peaking consumption of natural gas by most of its customers and other factors, however, the Company holds contractual rights to gas supplies and transportation and storage capacity in excess of its immediateaverage annual requirements to serve firm customers on its distribution system forsystem. For much of the year which, therefore, arethere is excess capacity available for third-party gas sales, exchanges and capacity releases. The Company sells excess gas supplies, enters into gas supply exchanges with third parties outside of its distribution area and releases to third parties excess interstate gas pipeline capacity and gas storage rights on a short-term basis to mitigate the costs of firm transportation and storage capacity for its core gas customers. The proceeds from such activities, net of transactional costs, are accounted for as reductions in the cost of purchased gas and passed on to customers through the PGA mechanism, with no direct impact on net income. As a result, the Company nets the sales revenue and associated cost of sales for these transactions in purchased gas.


ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT
The Company serves its regulated electric customers with an electric portfolio of owned and contracted resources. As a result, the portfolio exposes the Company and its customers to some volumetric and commodity price risks within the sharing mechanism of the PCA. The Company also serves its regulated gas customers with a gas portfolio of contracted resources which exposes the Company’s energy related businesses are exposedcustomers to commodity price risks related to changes in commodity prices and volumetric changes in its loads and resources.the PGA mechanism. The Company’s energy risk management function manages the Company’s core electricmonitors and gas supply portfolios to achieve three primary objectives:

Ensure that physical energy supplies are available to serve retail customer requirements;
Manage portfolio risks to limit undesired impacts on the Company’s costs; and
Maximize the value of energy supply assets.

        The Company enters into physical and financial instruments for the purpose of hedging commodity price risk. Gains or losses on these derivatives are accounted for pursuant to SFAS No. 133 as amended by SFAS No. 138 and SFAS No. 149. (See Note 15 for further discussion.) The Company has established policies and procedures to manage these risks. A Risk Management Committee separate from the business units that createmanages these risks monitors compliance with policiesusing analytical models and procedures.tools. In addition, the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors has oversightperiodically assesses risk management policies.



The Company manages its energy supply portfolio to achieve three primary objectives:
·  ensure that physical energy supplies are available to serve retail customer requirements;
·  manage portfolio risks to limit undesired impacts on the Company’s costs; and
·  maximize the value of the Company’s energy supply assets.

ACCOUNTING FOR DERIVATIVES
The Company follows the provisions of SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended by SFAS No. 138 and SFAS No. 149, which requires that all contracts considered to be derivative instruments be recorded on the balance sheet at their fair value. Under SFAS No. 149, any purchases from trading companies are now required to be marked-to-market if the party does not have physical plant to back up the transaction. This adoption did not have a significant effect on the Company in 2003. Certain contracts that would otherwise be considered derivatives are exempt from SFAS No. 133 if they qualify for a normal purchase and normal sale exception. The Company enters into both physical and financial contracts to manage its energy resource portfolio. The majority of these contracts qualify for the normal purchase and normal sale exception. However, certain of thesethose contracts that do not meet normal purchase or normal sale exception are derivatives and, pursuant to SFAS No. 133, are reported at their fair value in the balance sheet. Changes in their fair value are reported in earnings unless they meet specific hedge accounting criteria, in which case changes in their fair market value are recorded in comprehensive income until the time the transaction that they are hedging is recorded as income. The Company designates a derivative instrument as a qualifying cash flow hedge if the change in the fair value of the derivative is highly effective at offsetting the changes in the fair value of an asset, a liability or a forecasted transaction. To the extent that a portion of a derivative designated as a hedge is ineffective, changes in the fair value of the ineffective portion of that derivative are recognized currently in earnings. Changes in the market value of derivative transactions related to obtaining gas for the Company’s retail gas business are deferred as regulatory assets or liabilities as a result of the Company’s PGA mechanism and recorded in earnings as the transactions are executed. In addition, once the Company reaches the $40 million PCA cap, any unrealized gains or losses are deferred in proportion to the cost-sharing arrangement under the PCA.


1Over the four-year period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006, the Company's share of per-tax cost variation is capped at a cumulative $40 million plus 1% of the excess.


STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
The Company has various stock-based compensation plans which, prior to 2003, were accounted for according to APB No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related interpretations as allowed by SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” In 2003, the Company adopted the fair value based accounting of SFAS No. 123 using the prospective method under the guidance of SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure.” The Company will applyapplies SFAS No. 123 accounting prospectively to stock compensation awards granted infrom 2003 and future years,on, while grants that were made in years prior to 2003 will continue to beare accounted for using the intrinsic value method of APB No. 25. Had the Company used the fair value method of accounting specified by SFAS No. 123 for all grants at their grant date rather than prospectively implementing SFAS No. 123, net income and earnings per share would have been as follows:

(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
Years Ended December 31

2003
2002
2001
Income for common stock, as reported  $116,197 $110,052 $98,426 
Add: Total stock-based employee compensation expense included  
      in net income, net of tax   4,180  4,103  1,352 
Less: Total stock-based employee compensation expense per the fair  
      value method of SFAS No. 123, net of tax   (3,314) (3,495) (2,429)
 
Pro forma income for common stock  $117,063 $110,660 $97,349 
 
Earnings per share:  
   Basic as reported  $1.23$1.24 $1.14 
   Diluted as reported  $1.22 $1.24 $1.14 
   Basic pro forma  $1.24 $1.24 $1.13 
   Diluted pro forma  $1.23 $1.25 $1.12 


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Net income, as reported $55,022 $116,197 $110,052 
Add: Total stock-based employee compensation expense
included in net income, net of tax
  
2,641
  
4,180
  
4,103
 
Less: Total stock-based employee compensation expense per the
fair value method of SFAS No. 123, net of tax
  
(3,303
)
 
(3,314
)
 
(3,495
)
Pro forma net income $54,360 $117,063 $110,660 
Earnings per common share:          
Basic as reported $0.55 $1.23 $1.24 
Diluted as reported $0.55 $1.22 $1.24 
Basic pro forma $0.55 $1.24 $1.25 
Diluted pro forma $0.54 $1.23 $1.25 

DEBT RELATED COSTS
Debt premiums, discounts and expenses are amortized over the life of the related debt. The premiums and costs associated with reacquired debt are deferred and amortized over the life of the related new issuance, in accordance with ratemaking treatment.

At times the Company will enter into treasury lock transactions to hedge against the potential rising interest rates. The transaction, when settled, will be amortized over the related debt issuance life.


GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLES (PUGET ENERGY ONLY)
On January 1, 2002, SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” became effective and as a result Puget Energy ceased amortization of goodwill. During 2001, Puget Energy recorded approximately $2.8 million of goodwill amortization. Puget Energy performed an initial impairment review of goodwill and an annual impairment review thereafter. The initial review was completed during the first half of 2002, which did not result in an impairment charge. Goodwill is reviewed annually to determine if any impairment exists. If goodwill is determined to have an impairment, Puget Energy would record in the period of determination an impairment charge to earnings. Intangibles with finite lives are amortized based on the expected pattern of use or on a straight-line basis over the expected periods to be benefited. For those acquisitions occurring subsequent to June 30, 2001, there was no amortization of goodwill. For acquisitions made prior to June 30, 2001, goodwill and intangibles were amortized on a straight-line basis over the expected periods to be benefited, up to 30 years through December 31, 2001. The goodwill and intangibles recorded on the balance sheet of Puget Energy are the result of several acquisitions of companies by InfrastruX.

In 2004, InfrastruX recorded a $91.2 million ($76.6 million after tax and minority interest) impairment charge related to goodwill from acquired companies. See Note 18.

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE  (PUGET ENERGY ONLY)
Basic earnings per common share has been computed based on weighted average common shares outstanding of 99,470,000, 94,750,000 and 88,372,000 for 2004, 2003 and 86,445,000 for 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. Diluted earnings per common share has been computed based on weighted average common shares outstanding of 99,911,000, 95,309,000 and 88,777,000 for 2004, 2003 and 86,703,000 for 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively, which includes the dilutive effect of securities related to employee stock-based compensation plans.


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SECURITIZATION PROGRAM
Rainier Receivables, Inc. is a wholly owned, bankruptcy-remote subsidiary of PSE formed in December 2002 for the purpose of purchasing customers’ accounts receivable, both billed and unbilled, of PSE. Rainier Receivables and PSE have an agreement whereby Rainier Receivables can sell, on a revolving basis, up to $150 million of those eligible receivables. The current agreement expires in December 2005. Rainier Receivables is obligated to pay fees that approximate the third-party purchaser’s cost of issuing commercial paper equal in value to the interests in receivables sold. At December 31, 2003,2004, Rainier Receivables had sold $111$150 million of receivables compared to no sales$111 million of receivables sold at December 31, 2002.


NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS2003.



NOTE 2.New Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment” (SFAS No. 123R), which revises SFAS No. 123, “Accounting For Stock-Based Compensation.” SFAS No. 123R requires companies that issue share-based payment awards to employees for goods or services to recognize as compensation expense, the fair value of the expected vested portion of the award as of the grant date over the vesting period of the award. Forfeitures that occur before the award vesting date will be adjusted from the total compensation expense, but once the award vests, no adjustment to compensation expense will be allowed for forfeitures or unexercised awards. In addition, SFAS No. 123R would require recognition of compensation expense of all existing outstanding awards that are not fully vested for their remaining vesting period as of the effective date that were not accounted for under a fair-value method of accounting at the time of their award. SFAS No. 123R is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The Company is currently evaluating what impact the application of SFAS No. 123R will have on its operations. The Company had adopted the fair value provisions of SFAS No. 123 “Accounting for Stock Based Compensation” in January 2003,2003.
In December 2004, FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 109-1, “Application of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, to the Tax Deduction on Qualified Production Activities Provided by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004” (FSP No. 109-1). FSP No. 109-1 states that the staff position related to deductions as a result of the American Jobs Creation Act (the Act) should be treated as a “special deduction”, as described in SFAS No. 109, “Accounting For Income Taxes” and therefore has no effect on deferred tax assets or liabilities existing at the enactment date. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of FSP No. 109-1 (which was effective upon issuance) and any deduction available under the Act. Any deduction available, if determined, is applicable to the Company’s 2005 tax year.
On May 19, 2004, FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) No. 106-2 “Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003” as the result of the new Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act which was signed into law in December 2003. The law provides a subsidy for plan sponsors that provide prescription drug benefits to Medicare beneficiaries that are equivalent to the Medicare Part D plan. Based upon an actuarial assessment, PSE will not be eligible for such subsidies, thus FSP No. 106-2 will have no impact on PSE’s retiree medical plans.
The Emerging Issues Task Force of the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Interpretation(EITF) at its July 2003 meeting came to a consensus concerning EITF Issue No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (FIN 46), which03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB Statement No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03.” The consensus reached was further revised in December 2003 with FIN 46R, which clarified the application of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, “Consolidated Financial Statements,” to certain entities in which equity investors dothat determining whether realized gains and losses on physically settled derivative contracts not have a controlling interest or sufficient equity at riskheld for the entity to finance its activities without additional financial support. This Interpretation requires that if a business entity has a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity, the financial statements must be includedtrading purposes are reported in the consolidated financial statementsincome statement on a gross or net basis is a matter of judgment that depends on the business entity. The adoption ofrelevant facts and circumstances. Based on the guidance by EITF No. 03-11, the Company determined that its non-trading derivative instruments should be reported net and implemented this Interpretation for all interests in variable interest entities created aftertreatment effective January 31, 2003 is effective immediately. For variable interest entities created before February 1, 2003, it is effective July 1, 2003. The Company has evaluated its contractual arrangements and determined PSE’s 1995 conservation trust off-balance sheet financing transaction meets this guidance, and therefore it was consolidated in the third quarter of 2003.2004. As a result electricity revenues forof the implementation, Electric Revenue and Purchased Electricity Expense both decreased $108.7 million in 2003 increased $5.7and $77.1 million while conservation amortization and interest expense increased by the corresponding amountin 2002, respectively, with no impact on earnings. At December 31, 2003,financial position or net income.
In March 2004, the balance sheet assets and liabilities increased by $4.2 million. FIN 46R also impactedEITF came to a consensus concerning EITF Issue No. 03-16, “Accounting for Investments in Limited Liability Companies.” The consensus reached was that an investment in a limited liability company (LLC) should be accounted for using the treatmentequity method for investments greater than 3% to 5%. The adoption of the Company’s mandatorily redeemable preferred securitiesEITF No. 03-16 is effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2004, with any adjustments being accounted for as a cumulative effect of a wholly owned subsidiary trust holding solely junior subordinated debentures of the corporation (trust preferred securities). Previously, these trust preferred securities were consolidated into the Company’s operations. As a result of FIN 46R, these securities have been deconsolidated and were classified as junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities (junior subordinated debt)change in the fourth quarter of 2003. This change had no impact on the Company’s results of operations for 2003.accounting principle. The Company is evaluatingreviewed its purchase power agreementsinvestments and any other agreements to determine if FIN 46R will have an impact ondetermined one investment held by PSE met the financial statements.
criteria established in EITF No. 03-16.
In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity.” SFAS No. 150 establishes the requirements for classifying and measuring as liabilities certain financial instruments that embody obligations to redeem the financial instruments by the issuer. The adoption of SFAS No. 150 is effective with the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. However, on November 5, 2003 the FASB deferred for an indefinite period certain mandatorily redeemable noncontrolling interests associated with finite-lived subsidiaries. The Company does not have any noncontrolling interest in finite-lived subsidiaries and therefore, is not affected by the deferral. Prior periods will not be restated for the new presentation.
SFAS No. 150 requires the Company to classify its mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as liabilities. As a result, the corresponding dividends on the mandatorily redeemable preferred stock are classified as interest expense on the income statement with no impact on income for common stock.
In January 2003, FASB issued Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (FIN 46), as further revised in December 2003 SFASwith FIN 46R, which clarifies the application of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 132, “Employers’ Disclosures about Pensions51, “Consolidated Financial Statements,” to certain entities in which equity investors do not have a controlling interest or sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional financial support. FIN 46 requires that if a business entity has a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity, the financial statements must be included in the consolidated financial statements of the business entity. The adoption of FIN 46 for all interests in variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003 was effective immediately. For variable interest entities created before February 1, 2003, it was effective July 1, 2003. The adoption of FIN 46R was effective March 31, 2004. The Company evaluated its contractual arrangements and Other Postretirement Benefits” (SFAS No. 132R),determined PSE’s 1995 conservation trust off-balance sheet financing transaction met this guidance, and therefore it was revisedconsolidated in the third quarter 2003. As a result, electricity revenues for 2003 increased $5.7 million, while conservation amortization and interest expense increased by the corresponding amount with no impact on earnings. FIN 46R also impacted the treatment of the Company’s mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of a wholly owned subsidiary trust holding solely junior subordinated debentures of the corporation (trust preferred securities). Previously, these trust-preferred securities were consolidated into the Company’s operations. As a result of FIN 46R, these securities have been deconsolidated and were classified as junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to include various additional disclosure requirements. SFAS No. 132Ra subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities (junior subordinated debt) in the fourth quarter 2003. This change had no impact on the Company’s results of operations. The Company also evaluated its purchase power agreements and determined that three counterparties may be considered variable interest entities. As a result, PSE submitted requests for information to those parties; however, the parties have refused to submit to PSE the necessary information for PSE to determine whether they meet the requirements of a variable interest entity. PSE also determined that it does not have a contractual right to such information. PSE will continue to submit requests for information to the counterparties in the future to determine if FIN 46R is effectiveapplicable.
For the three purchase power agreements that may be considered variable interest entities under FIN 46R, PSE is required to buy all the generation from these plants, subject to displacement by PSE, at rates set forth in the purchase power agreements. If at any time the counterparties cannot deliver energy to PSE, PSE would have to buy energy in the wholesale market at prices which could be higher or lower than the purchase power agreement prices. PSE’s Purchased Electricity expense for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2003. (See Note 12.)
2004 and 2003 for these three entities was $251.2 million and $273.9 million, respectively.
In June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards BoardFASB issued SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,” (SFAS No. 143) which is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002. SFAS No. 143 requires legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets to be recognized at their fair value at the time that the obligations are incurred. Upon initial recognition of a liability, that cost should be capitalized as part of the related long-lived asset and allocated to expense over the useful life of the asset. The Company adopted the new rules on asset retirement obligations on January 1, 2003. As a result, the Company recorded a $0.2 million charge to income for the cumulative effect of this accounting change. (See Note 2.3.)
In November 2004, FASB reached a decision concerning a proposed interpretation of SFAS No. 143 titled “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations.” The Emerging Issues Task Forceproposed interpretation addresses the issue of whether SFAS No. 143 requires an entity to recognize a liability for a legal obligation to perform asset retirement when the asset retirement activities are conditional on a future event, and if so, the timing and valuation of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (EITF or Task Force) at its July 2003 meeting came to a consensus concerning EITF Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gains and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject torecognition. The decision reached by FASB Statement No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03.” The consensus reached was that determining whether realized gains and lossesthere are no instances where a law or regulation obligates an entity to perform retirement activities but then allows the entity to permanently avoid settling the obligation. This, if part of the final issued interpretation, could potentially have an impact on physically settled derivative contracts not held for trading purposes reportedthe Company as assets that were previously considered outside the scope of SFAS No. 143 may be subject to the terms of the proposed interpretation. FASB indicated that the final interpretation is anticipated to be issued in the income statement onfirst quarter 2005, with an effective date for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005, with any adjustment accounted for as a gross or net basiscumulative effect of an accounting change. The Company is a matter of judgment that dependscurrently evaluating what impact this proposed interpretation may have on the relevant facts and circumstances. Based on the guidance by EITF No. 03-11, the Company determined that its non-trading derivative instruments should be reported net and will implement this treatment effective January 1, 2004.


if issued.



NOTE 2.
3.
Utility and Non-Utility Plant

UTILITY PLANT
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
At December 31

2003
2002
  Electric, gas and common utility plant classified      
       prescribed accounts at original cost:  
    Distribution plant  $4,030,570 $3,911,725 
    Production plant   1,144,354  1,126,173 
    Transmission plant   379,889  368,959 
    General plant   344,781  365,409 
    Construction work in progress   121,622  108,658 
    Plant acquisition adjustment   76,623  76,623 
    Intangible plant (including capitalized software   270,235  260,043 
    Underground storage   22,362  22,291 
    Liquefied natural gas storage   2,348  644 
    Plant held for future use   7,608  8,729 
    Other   5,240  4,807 
    Less accumulated provision for depreciation   (2,325,405) (2,223,190)

       Net utility plant  $4,080,227 $4,030,871 


NON-UTILITY PLANT
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
At December 31

2003
2002
  Non-utility plant  $122,926 $100,481 
  Intangibles   23,985  21,933 
  Less accumulated depreciation and amortizati   (36,272) (22,907)

       Net non-utility plant and intangibles  $110,639 $99,507 

        The non-utility

UTILITY PLANT
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
ESTIMATED
USEFUL LIFE
(YEARS)
 
 
 
2004
 
 
 
2003
 
Electric, gas and common utility plant classified by
prescribed accounts at original cost:
      
Distribution plant10-60 $ 4,219,720 $ 4,030,570 
Production plant40-100 1,150,781 1,144,354 
Transmission plant30-95 426,543 379,889 
General plant10-35 346,472 344,781 
Construction work in progressNA 129,966 121,622 
Intangible plant (including capitalized software)3-29 283,179 270,235 
Plant acquisition adjustment21 76,623 76,623 
Underground storage50-80 23,089 22,362 
Liquefied natural gas storage14-50 12,345 2,348 
Plant held for future use-- 7,296 7,608 
Other27-34 5,313 5,240 
Less accumulated provision for depreciation  (2,452,969)(2,325,405)
Net utility plant  $ 4,228,358 $ 4,080,227 


NON-UTILITY PLANT
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
ESTIMATED
USEFUL LIFE
(YEARS)
 
 
 
2004
 
 
 
2003
 
Non-utility plant3-20 $ 138,656 $ 122,926 
Intangibles5-20 24,056 23,985 
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization  (52,947)(36,272)
Net non-utility plant and intangibles  $ 109,765 $ 110,639 

Non-utility plant is composed primarily of the property, plant and equipment of InfrastruX. The intangiblesNon-utility plant and accumulated depreciation is included in “other” under “other property and investments” in the Puget Energy balance sheet. Intangibles are composed of patents, contractual customer relationships and other amortizable intangible assets of InfrastruX.
On January 1, 2003, the Company adopted SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” SFAS No. 143 requires legal obligations associated with the retirement of long-lived assets to be recognized at their fair value at the time that the obligations are incurred. Upon initial recognition of a liability, that cost is capitalized as part of the related long-lived asset and allocated to expense over the useful life of the asset. The Company recorded an after-tax charge to income of $0.2 million in the first quarter of 2003 for the cumulative effect of the accounting change. In accordance with guidance provided by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company reclassified $124.9 million in 2003 and $114.6 million in 2002 for non-legal cost of removal on utility plant from accumulated depreciation to a regulatory liability. The cost of removal is collected from PSE’s customers through depreciation expense and any excess is recorded as a regulatory liability.
The Company identified various asset retirement obligations at January 1, 2003, which were included in the cumulative effect of the accounting change. The Company has an obligation (1) to dismantle two leased electric generation turbine units and deliver the turbines to the nearest railhead at the termination of the lease in 2009; (2) to remove certain structures as a result of renegotiations with the Department of Natural Resources of a now-expired lease; (3) to replace or line all cast iron pipes in its service territory by 2007 as a result of a 1992 Washington Commission order; and (4) to restore ash holding ponds at a jointly owned coal-fired electric generating facility in Montana.


The following table describes all changes to the Company’s asset retirement obligation liability during 2003:

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31, 2003

Amount
Asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2002  $-- 
Liability recognized in transition   3,592 
Liability settled in the period   (261)
Accretion expense   90 

Asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2003  $3,421 

liability:


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
         2004 2003 
Asset retirement obligation at beginning of year $3,421 $-- 
Liability recognized in transition  --  3,592 
Liability settled in the period  --  (261)
Accretion expense  95  90 
Asset retirement obligation at December 31 $3,516 $3,421 

The pro forma asset retirement obligation liability balances as if SFAS No. 143 had been adopted on January 1, 20002002 (rather than January 1, 2003) are as follows:


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

Pro forma amounts of liability for asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2000$3,405 
Pro forma amounts of liability for asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2001January 1, 2002$     3,497
Pro forma amounts of liability for asset retirement obligation at December 31, 20023,592


The pro forma income statement effect as if SFAS No. 143 had been adopted on January 1, 20002002 (rather than January 1, 2003) is as follows:

(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
2003
2002
2001
Income for common stock, as reported  $116,197 $110,052 $98,426 
Add: SFAS No. 143 transition adjustment, net of tax   169  --  -- 
Less: Pro forma accretion expense, net of tax   --  (62) (60)

Pro forma income for common stock  $116,366 $109,990 $98,366 

Earnings per share:  
   Basic as reported  $1.23 $1.24 $1.14 
   Diluted as reported  $1.22 $1.24 $1.14 
   Basic pro forma  $1.23 $1.24 $1.14 
   Diluted pro forma  $1.22 $1.24 $1.13 


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS) 2003 2002 
Net income, as reported $116,197 $110,052 
Add: SFAS No. 143 transition adjustment, net of tax  169  -- 
Less: Pro forma accretion expense, net of tax  --  (62)
Pro forma net income $116,366 $109,990 
Earnings per share:       
Basic as reported $1.23 $1.24 
Diluted as reported $1.22 $1.24 
Basic pro forma $1.23 $1.24 
Diluted pro forma $1.22 $1.24 


NOTE 3.4.
Preferred Stock


On November 1, 2003, all the authorized and outstanding 2.4 million shares of the $25 par value 7.45% Series preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption were redeemed at par value plus accrued dividends. There were no other redemptions or reacquired shares of this preferred stock series in 2002 or 2001.

2003.



NOTE 4.5.
Preferred Share Purchase Right


On October 23, 2000, the Board of Directors declared a dividend of one preferred share purchase right (a Right) for each outstanding common share of Puget Energy. The dividend was paid on December 29, 2000 to shareholders of record on that date. The Rights will become exercisable only if a person or group acquires 10% or more of Puget Energy’s outstanding common stock or announces a tender offer which, if consummated, would result in ownership by a person or group of 10% or more of the outstanding common stock. Each Right will entitle the holder to purchase from Puget Energy one one-hundredth of a share of preferred stock with economic terms similar to that of one share of Puget Energy’s common stock at a purchase price of $65, subject to adjustments. The Rights expire on December 21, 2010, unless earlier redeemed or exchanged earlier by Puget Energy.




NOTE 5.
6.
Dividend Restrictions


The payment of dividends on common stock is restricted by provisions of certain covenants applicable to preferred stock and long-term debt contained in the Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Mortgage Indentures. Under the most restrictive covenants of PSE, earnings reinvested in the business unrestricted as to payment of cash dividends were approximately $235.9$274.4 million at December 31, 2003.2004. For the years 2004, 2003 2002 and 2001,2002, the aggregate dividends declared per share were $1.00, $1.00 and $1.21, and $1.84, respectively.
Under the general rate settlement, PSE must rebuild its common equity ratio to at least 39%, with milestones of 34%, 35% and 39% at the end of 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. If PSE should fail to meet the schedule, it would be subject to a 2% rate reduction penalty. The common equity ratio for PSE at December 31, 20032004 was 40.0%40.1%.



NOTE 6.
7.
Redeemable Securities

 PREFERRED STOCK SUBJECT TO
MANDATORY REDEMPTION $100 PAR VALUE

 
4.70%
SERIES

4.84%
SERIES

7.75%
SERIES

SHARES OUTSTANDING DECEMBER 31, 2000 4,311 14,808 562,500 

Acquired for sinking fund       
2001 -- -- (75,000)
2002��-- -- (75,000)
2003 -- -- (75,000)

Called for redemption or reacquired and canceled:    
2001 -- -- -- 
2002 -- -- -- 
2003 -- (225)(337,500)

Shares outstanding December 31, 2003 4,311 14,583 -- 

See “Consolidated Statements of Capitalization” for details on specific series.


  
PREFERRED STOCK SUBJECT TO
MANDATORY REDEMPTION $100 PAR VALUE
 
  
4.70%
SERIES
 
4.84%
SERIES
 
7.75%
SERIES
 
Shares outstanding December 31, 2001  4,311  14,808  487,500 
Acquired for sinking fund:          
2002  --  --  (75,000)
2003  --  --  (75,000)
2004  --  --  -- 
Called for redemption or reacquired and canceled:          
2002  --  --  -- 
2003  --  (225) (337,500)
2004  --  --  -- 
Shares outstanding December 31, 2004  4,311  14,583  -- 
See “Consolidated Statements of Capitalization” for details on specific series.

PREFERRED STOCK SUBJECT TO MANDATORY REDEMPTION
The Company is required to deposit funds annually in a sinking fund sufficient to redeem the following number of shares of each series of preferred stock at $100 per share plus accrued dividends: 4.70% Series and 4.84% Series, 3,000 shares each and 7.75% Series, 37,500 shares.each. All previous sinking fund requirements have been satisfied. The $100 par value 7.75% Series preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption was fully redeemed at $102.07 per share plus accrued dividends on August 15, 2003. At December 31, 2003,2004, there were 37,68934,689 shares of the 4.70% Series and 21,19218,192 shares of the 4.84% Series acquired by the Company and available for future sinking fund requirements. Upon involuntary liquidation, all preferred shares are entitled to their par value plus accrued dividends.
The preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption may also be redeemed by the Company at the following redemption prices per share plus accrued dividends: 4.70% Series, $101.00 and 4.84% Series, $102.00.


JUNIOR SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES OF THE CORPORATION PAYABLE TO A SUBSIDIARY TRUST HOLDING MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED SECURITIES
SECRUITIES
In 1997 and 2001, the Company formed Puget Sound Energy Capital Trust I and Puget Sound Energy Capital Trust II, respectively, for the sole purpose of issuing and selling common and preferred securities (Trust Securities). The proceeds from the sale of Trust Securities were used to purchase Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures) from the Company. The Debentures are the sole assets of the Trusts and the Company owns all common securities of the Trusts.
The Debentures of Trust I and Trust II have an interest rate of 8.231% and 8.40%, respectively, and a stated maturity date of June 1, 2027 and June 30, 2041, respectively. The Trust Securities are subject to mandatory redemption at par on the stated maturity date of the Debentures. The Trust Securities in the Capital Trust I may be redeemed earlier, under certain conditions, at the option of the Company. The Capital Trust II Securities may be redeemed at any time on or after June 30, 2006 at par, under certain conditions, at the option of the Company. Dividends relating to preferred securities are included in interest expense for all periods presented. On February 26, 2003, the Company repurchased 19,750 shares of the 8.231% Trust Securities.




NOTE 7.
8.
Long-Term Debt


FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS AND SENIOR NOTES
AT DECEMBER 31 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

   SERIES      DUE          2003        2002     SERIES      DUE          2003        2002 
6.20%2003$         -- $   3,000  7.61%2008$  25,000 $  25,000 
6.23%2003-- 1,500  6.46%2009150,000 150,000 
6.24%2003-- 1,500  6.61%20093,000 3,000 
6.30%2003-- 20,000  6.62%20095,000 5,000 
6.31%2003-- 5,000  7.12%20107,000 7,000 
6.40%2003-- 11,000  7.96%2010225,000 225,000 
7.02%2003-- 30,000  7.69%2011260,000 260,000 
6.25%2004-- 40,000  8.20%2012-- 30,000 
6.07%200410,000 10,000  8.59%2012-- 5,000 
6.10%20048,500 8,500  6.83%20133,000 3,000 
7.70%200450,000 50,000  6.90%201310,000 10,000 
7.80%200430,000 30,000  7.35%201510,000 10,000 
6.92%200511,000 11,000  7.36%20152,000 2,000 
6.93%200520,000 20,000  6.74%2018200,000 200,000 
6.58%200610,000 10,000  9.57%202025,000 25,000 
8.06%200646,000 46,000  8.25%2022-- 25,000 
8.14%200625,000 25,000  8.39%2022-- 7,000 
7.02%200720,000 20,000  8.40%2022-- 3,000 
7.04%20075,000 5,000  7.19%2023-- 3,000 
7.75%2007100,000 100,000  7.35%202455,000 55,000 
8.40%2007-- 10,000  7.15%202515,000 15,000 
3.363%2008150,000 --  7.20%20252,000 2,000 
6.51%20081,000 1,000  7.02%2027300,000 300,000 
6.53%20083,500 3,500  7.00%2029    100,000     100,000 
     Total $1,887,000$1,932,000

        In June 2003, the Company issued $150 million in first mortgage bonds, which are due June 2008.


SERIES DUE 2004 2003 SERIES DUE 2004 2003
6.07% 2004 $          -- $10,000 6.46% 2009 150,000 150,000
6.10% 2004 -- 8,500 6.61% 2009 3,000 3,000
7.70% 2004 -- 50,000 6.62% 2009 5,000 5,000
7.80% 2004 -- 30,000 7.12% 2010 7,000 7,000
6.92% 2005 11,000 11,000 7.96% 2010 225,000 225,000
6.93% 2005 20,000 20,000 7.69% 2011 260,000 260,000
Variable 2006 200,000 -- 6.83% 2013 3,000 3,000
6.58% 2006 10,000 10,000 6.90% 2013 10,000 10,000
8.06% 2006 46,000 46,000 7.35% 2015 10,000 10,000
8.14% 2006 25,000 25,000 7.36% 2015 2,000 2,000
7.02% 2007 20,000 20,000 6.74% 2018 200,000 200,000
7.04% 2007 5,000 5,000 9.57% 2020 25,000 25,000
7.75% 2007 100,000 100,000 7.35% 2024 -- 55,000
3.363% 2008 150,000 150,000 7.15% 2025 15,000 15,000
6.51% 2008 1,000 1,000 7.20% 2025 2,000 2,000
6.53% 2008 3,500 3,500 7.02% 2027 300,000 300,000
7.61% 2008  25,000  25,000 7.00% 2029 100,000 100,000
        Total $1,933,500 $1,887,000

In January 2004, the Company filed a shelf-registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the offering, on a delayed or continuous basis, of up to $500 million of any combination of common stock of Puget Energy and principal amount of Senior Notessenior notes secured by a pledge of first mortgage bonds. In July 2004, PSE issued $200 million in floating rate senior notes under its existing $500 million registration statement. The notes have a floating interest rate which is based on the three-month LIBOR rate plus 0.30% (2.37% at December 31, 2004), and mature in July 2006. The Company called and paid off 15five series of first mortgage bonds in 2003,2004, totaling $195$153.5 million. The Company repaid the bonds using both cash on hand.
hand and proceeds from the $200 million floating rate senior notes.
Substantially all utility properties owned by the Company are subject to the lien of the Company’s electric and gas mortgage indentures. To issue additional first mortgage bonds under these indentures, PSE’s earnings available for interest must be at least twice the annual interest charges on outstanding first mortgage bonds. At December 31, 2003,2004, the earnings available for interest were 2.9 timesexceeded the annual interest charges.


required amount.


POLLUTION CONTROL BONDS
The Company has outstanding two series of Pollution Control Bonds. On February 19, 2003, the Board of Directors approved the refinancing of all Pollution Control Bonds series. The new series, which were issued in March 2003. Amounts outstanding were borrowed from the City of Forsyth, Montana (the City). The City obtained the funds from the sale of Customized Pollution Control Refunding Bonds issued to finance pollution control facilities at Colstrip Units 3 and& 4.
Each series of bonds is collateralized by a pledge of PSE’s first mortgage bonds, the terms of which match those of the Pollution Control Bonds. No payment is due with respect to the related series of first mortgage bonds so long as payment is made on the Pollution Control Bonds.

AT DECEMBER 31 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
SERIES
DUE2003       2002 

2003A Series - 5.00%2031$138,460 $         --  
2003B Series - 5.10%2031    23,400 --  
1993 Series - 5.875%2020-- 23,460  
1991 Series - 7.05%2021-- 27,500  
1991 Series - 7.25%2021-- 23,400  
1992 Series - 6.80%2022-- 87,500  

Total $161,860 $161,860  


AT DECEMBER 31 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
SERIESDUE20042003
2003A Series- 5.00%
2031$   138,460$   138,460
2003B Series- 5.10%
203123,40023,400
Total $   161,860$   161,860

CONSERVATION TRUST FINANCINGS
In July 2003, FIN 46 requiredOctober 2004, the 6.45% Conservation Trust Bonds matured. PSE to consolidateoriginally consolidated the 1995 Conservation Trust Transaction.Bonds when FIN 46 went into effect in July 2003. The balance of the 6.45% bonds was $4.2 million at December 31, 2003 and they will mature in 2004.

was $4.2 million.


LONG-TERM REVOLVING CREDIT FACILITY (PUGET ENERGY ONLY)
Puget Energy has a $15.0 million revolving credit facility available through a local bank. At December 31, 2003,2004, there was $5.0 million outstanding at a weighted average interest rate of 2.86%3.07%, leaving $10.0 million available under the facility. On February 1, 2005, Puget Energy isreduced the guarantor ofborrowing capacity under this credit facility.
facility to $5.0 million.
InfrastruX and its subsidiaries have signed credit agreements with several banks for up to $184.7$186.7 million, which expire in 2004 and 2005.at various dates from 2005 to 2007. Under the InfrastruX credit agreement, Puget Energy is the guarantor of $150.0 million of the line of credit. InfrastruX has borrowed $155.6$143.1 million at a weighted average interest rate of 2.61%2.96%, leaving a balance of $29.1$43.6 million available under the lines of credit at December 31, 2003.2004. InfrastruX also has $19.3$18.4 million in equipment financing agreements with various vendors. These agreements mature at various dates from 20042005 to 2009 and carry interest rates from 0%up to 9.65%7.45%.


LONG-TERM DEBT MATURITIES
The principal amounts of long-term debt maturities for the next five years and thereafter are as follows:

PUGET ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Thereafter 
Maturities Of:
   Long-term debt
$246,829$37,526$90,771$127,404$179,896$1,533,892 

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Thereafter 
Maturities Of:
   Long-term debt
$102,658$31,000$81,000$125,000$179,500$1,533,847 

PUGET ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
2005
 
2006
 
2007
 
2008
 
2009
 
THEREAFTER
Maturities of:      
Long-term debt$   38,933$   292,276$   259,866$   181,089$   158,441$   1,320,860

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
2005
 
2006
 
2007
 
2008
 
2009
 
THEREAFTER
Maturities of:      
Long-term debt$   31,000$   281,000$   125,000$   179,500$   158,000$   1,320,860


NOTE 8.
9.
Liquidity Facilities and Other Financing Arrangements


At December 31, 2003,2004, PSE had short-term borrowing arrangements that included a $250$350 million unsecured 364-day line of credit agreement with variousa group of banks and a $150 million three-year receivables securitization program. These agreementsarrangements provide PSE with the ability to borrow at different interest rate options and include variable fee levels. The line of credit agreement allows the Company to make floating rate advances at the banks’ prime plus a spreadrate and Eurodollar advances at LIBOR plus a spread. The agreementspread, and contains “credit sensitive” pricing with various spreads associated with various credit rating levels. The line of credit agreement also allows for drawingissuing standby letters of credit up to $50 million.
the entire line of credit agreement amount. The line of credit agreement expires in June 2007.
PSE has entered into a Receivables Sales Agreement with Rainier Receivables, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of PSE, in December 2002. Pursuant to the Receivables Sales Agreement, PSE sells all of its utility customer accounts receivable and unbilled utility revenues to Rainier Receivables. In addition, Rainier Receivables entered into a Receivables Purchase Agreement with PSE and a third party. The Receivables Purchase Agreement allows Rainier Receivables to sell the receivables purchased from PSE to the third party. The amount of receivables sold by Rainier Receivables is not permitted to exceed $150 million at any time. However, the maximum amount may be less than $150 million depending on the eligible outstanding amount of PSE’s receivables which fluctuate with the seasonality of energy sales to customers.
The receivables securitization facility is the functional equivalent of a secured revolving line of credit. In the event Rainier Receivables elects to sell receivables under the Receivables Purchase Agreement, Rainier Receivables is required to pay the purchasers fees that are comparable to interest rates on a revolving line of credit. As receivables are collected by PSE as agent for the receivables purchasers, the outstanding amount of receivables purchased by the purchasers declines until Rainier Receivables elects to sell additional receivables to the purchasers.
The receivables securitization facility has a three-year term,expires in December 2005, but is terminable by PSE and Rainier Receivables upon notice to the receivables purchasers. During the year ended December 31, 2003,2004, Rainier Receivables had sold $348.0a cumulative amount of $600.2 million in accounts receivable. Atreceivable, and had $150.0 million of accounts receivable sold under the program at December 31, 2004. There were no additional amounts available to be sold under the program at December 31, 2004. During the year ended December 31, 2003, Rainier Receivables had sold $111.0a cumulative amount of $348.0 million in accounts receivable and had $111.0 million sold under the maximum remaining receivables available for sale was $39.0 million.
program at December 31, 2003.
In addition, PSE has agreements with certain banks to borrow on an uncommitted, as available, basis at money market rates quoted by the banks. There are no costs, other than interest, for these arrangements. PSE also uses commercial paper to fund its short-term borrowing requirements. The following table presents the liquidity facilities and other financing arrangements at December 31, 20032004 and 2002.

       (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)  
       At December 312003 2002 

          Short-term borrowings outstanding:
           Commercial paper notes$         -- $  30,340 
           InfrastruX bank line of credit borrowings13,893 16,955 
           Weighted average interest rate2.59%2.81%

         Financing arrangements:
           Puget Energy line of credit1$  15,000 $         -- 
           InfrastruX revolving credit facilities2184,725 179,750 
           PSE line of credit 3250,000 250,000 
           PSE receivables securitization program4150,000 150,000 

        The Company has, on occasion, entered into interest rate swap agreements to reduce the impact2003.


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
Short-term borrowings outstanding:       
InfrastruX bank line of credit borrowings $8,297 $13,893 
Weighted average interest rate  2.47% 2.59%
Financing arrangements:       
Puget Energy line of credit1
 $15,000 $15,000 
InfrastruX revolving credit facilities2
  186,725  184,725 
PSE line of credit3
  350,000  250,000 
PSE receivables securitization program4
  150,000  150,000 
___________________
1  
Includes $5.0 million outstanding at December 31, 2004, leaving $10.0 million available under the agreement. On February 1, 2005, Puget Energy reduced the capacity to $5.0 million.
2  
The revolving credit facility requires InfrastruX and its subsidiaries to maintain certain financial covenants, including requirements to maintain certain levels of net worth and debt coverage. The agreement also places certain restrictions on expenditures, other indebtedness and executive compensation. For 2004 and 2003, InfrastruX had $143.1 million and $155.6 million outstanding under the credit facilities, effectively reducing available borrowing capacity to $43.6 million and $29.1 million, respectively.
3  
Provides liquidity support for PSE’s outstanding commercial paper and letters of credit in the amount of $0.5 million in 2004 and 2003, effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity under these credit lines to $349.5 million and $249.5 million, respectively. There was no commercial paper outstanding at December 31, 2004 and 2003.
4  
Provides liquidity support for PSE’s outstanding letters of credit and commercial paper. At December 31, 2004, PSE had sold $150.0 million in receivables, leaving no amounts available to borrow under the receivables securitization program. At December 31, 2003, PSE had sold $111.0 million in receivables.




2The revolving credit facility requires InfrastruX and its subsidiaries to maintain certain financial covenants, including requirements to maintain certain levels of net worth and debt coverage. The agreement also places certain restrictions on expenditures, other indebtedness and executive compensation. For 2003 and 2002, InfrastruX had $155.6 million and $144.0 million outstanding under the credit facilities, effectively reducing available borrowing capacity to $29.1 million and $35.8 million, respectively.
3Provides liquidity support for PSE's outstanding commercial paper in the amount of $0.5 million and $30.3 million for 2003 and 2002, respectively, effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity under these credit lines to $249.5 million and $219.7 million, respectively.
4Provides liquidity support for PSE's outstanding letters of credit and commercial paper. At December 31, 2003, PSE had sold $111.0 million in receivables, effectively reducing the available borrowing capacity to $39.0 million. There were no receivables sold as of December 31, 2002.


NOTE 9.
10.
Estimated Fair Value of Financial Instruments


The following table presents the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of the Company’s financial instruments at December 31, 20032004 and 2002:

 2003
2002
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
CARRYING
AMOUNT

FAIR
VALUE

CARRYING
AMOUNT

FAIR
VALUE

  Financial assets:          
    Cash  $27.5$27.5$176.7$176.7
    Restricted cash   2.5 2.5 18.9 18.9
    Equity securities1   3.6 3.6 10.4 10.4
    Notes receivable and other   44.9 44.9 41.5 41.5
    Energy derivatives   16.2 16.2 13.6 13.6

  Financial liabilities:  
    Short-term debt  $13.9$13.9$47.3$47.3
    Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption   1.9 1.9 43.2 42.4
    Corporation obligated, mandatorily redeemable  
     preferred securities of subsidiary trust holdin    
     solely junior subordinated debentures of the  
     corporation   --  --  300.0 303.1
    Junior subordinated debentures of the corporatio    
     payable to a subsidiary trust holding mandatori    
     redeemable preferred securities   280.3 304.6 --  -- 
    Long-term debt2   2,216.3 2,408.7 2,237.1 2,395.9
    Energy derivatives   3.6 3.6 2.4 2.4

        The2003.


  2004 2003 
 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
CARRYING
AMOUNT
 
FAIR
VALUE
 
CARRYING
AMOUNT
 
FAIR
VALUE
 
Financial assets:         
Cash $19.8 $19.8 $27.5 $27.5 
Restricted cash  1.6  1.6  2.5  2.5 
Equity securities  1.9  1.9  3.6  3.6 
Notes receivable and other  71.4  71.4  63.6  63.6 
Energy derivatives  21.9  21.9  16.2  16.2 
Financial liabilities:             
Short-term debt $8.3 $8.3 $13.9 $13.9 
Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption  1.9  1.9  1.9  1.9 
Junior subordinated debentures of the corporation
payable to a subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities
  280.3  290.9  280.3  304.6 
Long-term debt- fixed-rate1
  2,051.4  2,194.8  2,216.3  2,409.6 
Long-term debt- variable-rate1
  200.0  199.9  --  -- 
Energy derivatives  19.5  19.5  3.6  3.6 
____________________
1  
PSE’s carrying value and fair value of both fixed-rate and variable-rate long-term debt in 2004 was $2,095.4 million and $2,238.7 million, respectively. PSE’s carrying value and fair value of fixed-rate long-term debt in 2003 was $2,053.0 million and $2,250.4 million, respectively.

The carrying amount of equity securities is based on valuations provided by the investment fund manager.
considered to be a reasonable estimate of fair value. The fair value of outstanding bonds including current maturities is estimated based on quoted market prices.
The fair value of the preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption and corporation obligated, mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of a subsidiary trust holding solely junior subordinated debentures of the corporation is estimated based on dealer quotes.
The fair value of the junior subordinated debentures of the corporation payable to a subsidiary trust holding mandatorily redeemable preferred securities is estimated based on dealer quotes.
The carrying values of short-term debt and notes receivable are considered to be a reasonable estimate of fair value. The carrying amount of cash, which includes temporary investments with original maturities of three months or less, is also considered to be a reasonable estimate of fair value.
Derivative instruments have been used by the Company on a limited basis and are recorded at fair value. The Company has a policy that financial derivatives are to be used only to mitigate business risk.
In 2003, PSE redeemed the 7.75% mandatorily redeemable preferred stock. 75,000 shares were redeemed in February 2003 at the par value of $100 per share and the remaining 337,500 shares were redeemed in August 2003 at $102.07 per share. Also in 2003, 19,750 shares of the 8.231% Capital Trust I preferred stock were redeemed at $990 per share, leaving 80,250 shares still outstanding.


1 The 2002 carrying amount includes an adjustment of $2.4 million, to report the available-for-sale securities at market value. This amount (or unrealized gain) There was included as a component of other comprehensive income net of deferred taxes of $0.8 million for 2002.no preferred stock redeemed in 2004.


2 PSE's carrying and fair value of long-term debt for 2003 was $2,053.0 million and $2,250.4 million, respectively.



NOTE 10.11.Leases

Leases

All of PSE’s leases are operating leases. Certain leases contain purchase options and renewal and escalation provisions. Operating and capital lease payments net of sublease receipts were:

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)PUGET ENERGY
PSE
At December 31OperatingCapitalOperating

2003$26,842 $2,696 $19,301 
200226,368 2,486 20,176 
200125,373 1,966 20,135 


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)PUGET ENERGYPSE
AT DECEMBER 31OPERATINGCAPITALOPERATING
2004$ 25,751$ 2,086$ 17,618
200326,8422,69619,301
200226,3862,48620,176

Payments received for the subleases of properties were approximately $0.1 million, $1.4 million $2.6 million and $2.5$2.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, and 2001, respectively.
Future minimum lease payments for non-cancelable leases net of sublease receipts are:

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)PUGET ENERGY
PSE
At December 31OperatingCapitalOperating

2004$17,967 $1,611 $10,651 
200513,858 1,522 8,939 
200611,278 1,391 8,763 
20079,660 913 8,696 
20089,355 1,051 8,132 
Thereafter10,346 -- 10,346 

Total minimum lease payments$72,464 $6,488 $55,527 


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)PUGET ENERGYPSE
AT DECEMBER 31OPERATINGCAPITALOPERATING
2005$ 19,311$ 1,988$ 12,791
200619,8042,05716,034
200717,5001,55815,524
200815,1741,03214,496
200911,59134311,459
Thereafter46,140--46,045
Total minimum lease payments$ 129,520$ 6,978$ 116,349

PSE leases a portion of its owned gas transmission pipeline infrastructure under a non-cancelable operating lease to a third party. The lease expires in 2009. Future minimum sublease receiptslease payments to be received by PSE under this lease are:

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
AT DECEMBER 31
 
2005
 
2006
 
2007
 
2008
 
2009
Lease receipts$ 1,182$ 1,182$ 1,182$ 1,182$ 985

In 2004, Puget Energy acquired $2.1 million in assets under capital leases, which is a non-cash investing activity for non-cancelable subleases are $0.1 millionthe Statement of Cash Flows for 2004.


Puget Energy.



NOTE 11.
12.
Income Taxes


The details of income taxes are as follows:

 2003
2002
2001
  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)   PUGET ENERGY  PSE  PUGET ENERGY  PSE  PUGET ENERGY  PSE 

  Charged to operating expense:  
  Current - federal  $18,119 $22,154 $(84,149)$(81,839)$58,749 $58,331 
  Current - state   (2,046) (1,460) (774) (548) 1,347  1,232 
  Deferred - net federal   56,004  50,880  144,230  135,884  19,945  18,040 
  Deferred -net state   927  --  614  --  485  -- 
  Deferred investment tax credits   (635) (635) (661) (661) (688) (688)

  Total charged to operations   72,369  70,939  59,260  52,836  79,838  76,915 

  Charged to miscellaneous income:  
  Current   (288) (276) (3,276) (3,406) 6,272  6,272 
  Deferred - net   (1,805) (1,805) 1,228  1,228  (2,259) (2,259)

  Total charged to miscellaneous income   (2,093) (2,081) (2,048) (2,178) 4,013  4,013 

  Cumulative effect of accounting change   (91) (91) --  --  (7,942) (7,942)

  Total income taxes  $70,185 $68,767 $57,212 $50,658 $75,909 $72,986 

PUGET ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Charged to operating expense:       
Current- federal
 $7,607 $18,119 $(84,149)
Current- state
  75  (2,046) (774)
Deferred -federal  70,522  56,004  144,230 
Deferred- state
  (2,647) 927  614 
Deferred investment tax credits  (593) (635) (661)
Total charged to operations  74,964  72,369  59,260 
Charged to miscellaneous income:          
Current  (5,344) (288) (3,276)
Deferred  2,470  (1,805) 1,228 
Total charged to miscellaneous income  (2,874) (2,093) (2,048)
Cumulative effect of accounting change  --  (91) -- 
Total income taxes $72,090 $70,185 $57,212 




PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Charged to operating expense:       
Current- federal
 $5,825 $22,154 $(81,839)
Current- state
  (21) (1,460) (548)
Deferred -federal  71,966  50,880  135,884 
Deferred- state
  --  --  -- 
Deferred investment tax credits  (593) (635) (661)
Total charged to operations  77,177  70,939  52,836 
Charged to miscellaneous income:          
Current  (5,306) (276) (3,406)
Deferred  2,470  (1,805) 1,228 
Total charged to miscellaneous income  (2,836) (2,081) (2,178)
Cumulative effect of accounting change  --  (91) -- 
Total income taxes $74,341 $68,767 $50,658 

The following is a reconciliation of the difference between the amount of income taxes computed by multiplying pre-tax book income by the statutory tax rate and the amount of income taxes in the Consolidated Statements of Income for the Company:

 2003
2002
2001
  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)   PUGET ENERGY  PSE  PUGET ENERGY  PSE  PUGET ENERGY  PSE 

  Income taxes at the statutory rate  $67,098 $66,028 $61,587 $55,862 $63,962 $62,079 

  Increase (decrease):  
    Depreciation expense deducted in  
     the financial statements in exce    
     of tax depreciation, net of  
     depreciation treated as a  
     temporary difference   9,130  9,130  10,041  10,041  11,726  11,726 
    AFUDC included in income in the  
     financial statements but exclude    
     from taxable income   (1,809) (1,809) (1,387) (1,387) (2,126) (2,126)
    Accelerated benefit on early  
     retirement of depreciable assets   (1,879) (1,879) (1,469) (1,469) (319) (319)
    Investment tax credit amortizatio   (635) (635) (661) (661) (689) (689)
    Energy conservation expenditures    
     net   8,096  8,096  6,259  6,259  6,859  6,859 
    Tax benefit of reduced salvage  
     values   --  --  (10,193) (10,193) --  -- 
     IRS issue resolution   (6,209) (6,209) --  --  --  -- 
    State income taxes net of the  
    federal income tax benefit   (877) (949) (104) (356) 1,191  801 
    Other - net   (2,730) (3,006) (6,861) (7,438) (4,695) (5,345)

  Total income taxes  $70,185 $68,767 $57,212 $50,658 $75,909 $72,986 

  Effective tax rate   36.6%  36.5%  32.5%  31.7%  41.5%  41.15% 



PUGET ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Income taxes at the statutory rate $42,016 $65,295 $58,846 
Increase (decrease):          
Depreciation expense deducted in the financial statements in excess of tax depreciation, net of depreciation treated as a temporary difference  
10,723
  
9,130
  
10,041
 
AFUDC included in income in the financial statements but excluded from taxable income  
(2,270
)
 
(1,809
)
 
(1,387
)
Accelerated benefit on early retirement of depreciable assets  
(1,297
)
 
(1,879
)
 
(1,469
)
Investment tax credit amortization  (593) (635) (661)
Energy Efficiency expenditures - net  (134) 8,096  6,259 
Tax benefit of reduced salvage values  --  --  (10,193)
IRS issue resolution  --  (6,209) -- 
Goodwill impairment  10,276  --  -- 
Valuation allowance  17,988  --  -- 
Preferred stock dividends of subsidiary  --  1,803  2,741 
Sate income taxes net of the federal income tax benefit  
(2,566
)
 
(877
)
 
(104
)
Other - net  (2,053) (2,730) (6,861)
Total income taxes $72,090 $70,185 $57,212 
Effective tax rate  62.2% 37.6% 34.0%



PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Income taxes at the statutory rate $70,187 $66,028 $55,862 
Increase (decrease):          
Depreciation expense deducted in the financial statements
in excess of tax depreciation, net of depreciation treated as a temporary difference
  
10,723
  
9,130
  
10,041
 
AFUDC included in income in the financial statements
but excluded from taxable income
  
(2,270
)
 
(1,809
)
 
(1,387
)
Accelerated benefit on early retirement of depreciable assets  
(1,297
)
 
(1,879
)
 
(1,469
)
Investment tax credit amortization  (593) (635) (661)
Energy Efficiency expenditures - net  (134) 8,096  6,259 
Tax benefit of reduced salvage values  --  --  (10,193)
IRS issue resolution  --  (6,209) -- 
Sate income taxes net of the federal income tax benefit  
(14
)
 
(949
)
 
(356
)
Other - net  (2,261) (3,006) (7,438)
Total income taxes $74,341 $68,767 $50,658 
Effective tax rate  37.1% 36.5% 31.7%

The Company’s deferred tax liability at December 31, 2004, 2003 2002 and 20012002 is composed of amounts related to the following types of temporary differences:

 2003
2002
2001
  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)   PUGET ENERGY  PSE  PUGET ENERGY  PSE  PUGET ENERGY  PSE 

  Utility plant  $607,203 $607,203 $578,137 $578,137 $570,982 $570,982 
  Energy conservation charges   9,446  9,446  16,473  16,473  23,782  23,782 
  Contributions in aid of construction   (46,520) (46,520) (44,770) (44,770) (36,044) (36,044)
  Bonneville Exchange Power   15,204  15,204  15,537  15,537  17,897  17,897 
  Cabot gas contract purchase   3,503  3,503  4,157  4,157  4,477  4,477 
  Deferred revenue   (4,680) (4,680) (5,292) (5,292) (5,904) (5,904)
  Software amortization   41,044  41,044  41,408  41,408  --  -- 
  Capitalized overhead costs   70,834  70,834  72,220  72,220  --  -- 
  Other   59,201  35,910  52,805  37,709  30,125  25,811 

  Total  $755,235 $731,944 $730,675 $715,579 $605,315 $601,001 

        Puget Energy’s totals


PUGET ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Plant and equipment $665,407 $622,462 $588,182 
Capitalized overhead costs  72,448  70,834  72,220 
Software amortization  37,484  41,044  41,408 
Pensions and compensation  15,367  16,890  29,099 
Bonneville Exchange Power  14,078  15,204  15,537 
Energy Efficiency charges  10,320  9,446  16,473 
Other deferred tax liabilities  68,587  68,351  46,655 
Subtotal deferred tax liabilities  883,691  844,231  809,574 
Contributions in aid of construction  (41,525) (46,520) (44,770)
Goodwill  (18,683) 4,192  2,106 
Other deferred tax assets  (30,745) (46,668) (36,235)
Subtotal deferred tax assets  (90,953) (88,996) (78,899)
Valuation allowance  17,988  --  -- 
Subtotal net deferred tax assets  (72,965) (88,996) (78,899)
Total $810,726 $755,235 $730,675 



        PSE’s totals of $731.9 million and $715.6 million for 2003 and 2002 consist of deferred tax liabilities of $852.4 million and $824.2 million net of deferred tax assets of $120.5 million and $108.6 million, respectively.

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Plant and equipment $645,826 $607,203 $578,137 
Capitalized overhead costs  72,448  70,834  72,220 
Software amortization  37,484  41,044  41,408 
Pensions and compensation  15,367  16,890  29,099 
Bonneville Exchange Power  14,078  15,204  15,537 
Energy Efficiency charges  10,320  9,446  16,473 
Other deferred tax liabilities  63,926  64,511  43,710 
Subtotal deferred tax liabilities  859,449  825,132  796,584 
Contributions in aid of construction  (41,525) (46,520) (44,770)
Other deferred tax assets  (30,745) (46,668) (36,235)
Subtotal deferred tax assets  (72,270) (93,188) (81,005)
Total $787,179 $731,944 $715,579 

Deferred tax amounts shown above result from temporary differences for tax and financial statement purposes. Deferred tax provisions are not recorded in the income statement for certain temporary differences between tax and financial statement purposes because they are not allowed for ratemaking purposes.
The Company calculates its deferred tax assets and liabilities under SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” SFAS No. 109 requires recording deferred tax balances, at the currently enacted tax rate, for all temporary differences between the book and tax bases of assets and liabilities, including temporary differences for which no deferred taxes had been previously provided because of use of flow-through tax accounting for ratemaking purposes. Because of prior and expected future ratemaking treatment for temporary differences for which flow-through tax accounting has been utilized, a regulatory asset for income taxes recoverable through future rates related to those differences has also been established by PSE. At December 31, 2003,2004, the balance of this asset was $142.8$127.3 million.

Puget Energy’s management has determined that a portion of the deferred tax asset related to InfrastruX goodwill impairment will not be realized and has provided a valuation allowance of $18.0 million at December 31, 2004 to reduce the deferred tax asset to its estimated realizable value.


NOTE 12.
13.
Retirement Benefits


The Company has a defined benefit pension plan with a cash balance feature covering substantially all of its utilityPSE employees. Benefits are a function of age, salary and service. Additionally Puget Energy maintains a non-qualified supplemental retirement plan for officers and certain director-level employees. The annual measurement date is December 31 of each year.
In addition to providing pension benefits, the Company provides certain health care and life insurance benefits for retired employees. These benefits are provided principally through an insurance company whose premiums are based on the benefits paid during the year.


  PENSION BENEFITS OTHER BENEFITS 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) 2004 2003 2004 2003 
Change in benefit obligation:
         
Benefit obligation at beginning of year $400,041 $369,692 $29,220 $31,693 
Service cost  10,343  8,284  189  175 
Interest cost  24,082  24,406  1,670  1,828 
Amendments  --  940  --  -- 
Actuarial (gain) loss  37,628  19,354  963  (2,194)
Special recognition of prior service costs  --  190  --  -- 
Benefits paid  (32,357) (22,825) (2,050) (2,282)
Benefit obligation at end of year $439,737 $400,041 $29,992 $29,220 


 PENSION BENEFITS
OTHER BENEFITS
       (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)   2003  2002  2003  2002 

       Change in benefit obligation:  
       Benefit obligation at beginning of year  $369,692 $400,461 $31,693 $29,115 
       Service cost   8,284  8,474  175  168 
       Interest cost   24,406  25,858  1,828  1,930 
       Amendments1   940  3,073  --  3,493 
       Actuarial loss   19,354  2,055  (2,194) (419)
       Plan curtailment2   --  (9,518) --  (553)
       Special adjustments2   190  10,872  --  -- 
       Benefits paid   (22,825) (71,583) (2,282) (2,041)

       Benefit obligation at end of year  $400,041 $369,692 $29,220 $31,693 

       Change in plan assets:  
       Fair value of plan assets at beginning  $343,960 $443,512 $16,160 $15,978 
       Actual return on plan assets   79,488  (40,849) 98  650 
       Employer contribution   27,963  12,880  1,455  1,573 
       Benefits paid   (22,825) (71,583) (2,282) (2,041)

       Fair value of plan assets at end of yea  $428,586 $343,960 $15,431 $16,160 

       Funded status  $28,545 $(25,732)$(13,789)$(15,533)
       Unrecognized actuarial gain (loss)   48,217  66,784  (2,895) (1,878)
       Unrecognized prior service cost   15,949  18,228  2,712  3,021 
       Unrecognized net initial (asset) obliga   (1,267) (2,371) 3,783  4,201 

       Net amount recognized  $91,444 $56,909 $(10,189)$(10,189)

       Amounts recognized on statement of  
         financial position consist of:  
       Prepaid benefit cost  $112,737 $73,361 $(10,189)$(10,189)
       Accrued benefit liability   (38,704) (34,253) --  -- 
       Intangible asset   9,043  10,555  --  -- 
       Accumulated other comprehensive income   8,368  7,246  --  -- 

       Net amount recognized  $91,444 $56,909 $(10,189 )$(10,189)


1 In 2002, the Company had $3.1 million in pensionTable of Contents


Change in plan assets:
         
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year $428,586 $343,960 $15,431 $16,160 
Actual return on plan assets  51,395  79,488  1,184  98 
Employer contribution  11,356  27,963  1,394  1,455 
Benefits paid  (32,357) (22,825) (2,050) (2,282)
Fair value of plan assets at end of year $458,980 $428,586 $15,959 $15,431 
Funded status $19,243 $28,545 $(14,033)$(13,789)
Unrecognized actuarial (gain) loss  72,428  48,217  (2,019) (2,895)
Unrecognized prior service cost  12,760  15,949  2,403  2,712 
Unrecognized net initial (asset) obligation  (163) (1,267) 3,365  3,783 
Net amount recognized $104,268 $91,444 $(10,284)$(10,189)
Amounts recognized on statement of 
financial position consist of:
             
Prepaid benefit cost $120,748 $112,737 $-- $-- 
Accrued benefit liability  (32,042) (38,704) (10,284) (10,189)
Intangible asset  7,351  9,043  --  -- 
Accumulated other comprehensive income  8,211  8,368  --  -- 
Net amount recognized $104,268 $91,444 $(10,284)$(10,189)

The projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of plan amendments due to changes in employment contracts, the addition of new entrants to the plan and the vesting of certain non-vested participants who were affected by the transition of service jobs to service providers. The Company had $3.5 million in other benefit plan amendments due to an increase in the Company's contribution to the retiree medical plan.
2 In 2002, the Company had a $9.5 million curtailment credit and $9.2 million in special adjustments to the pension benefit plan related to the transition of service jobs to service providers. The Company also had a $1.7 million special adjustment to the pension benefit plan related toassets for the non-qualified pension plan, which has accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan required to reflectassets, were $38.9 million, $31.8 million and none, respectively, as of December 31, 2004. For the specialqualified pension plan the projected benefit agreement given upon terminationobligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of a plan participant.assets were $400.9 million, $380.0 million and $459.0 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2004.

The projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets for the non-qualified pension plan which has accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, were $45.0 million, $38.6 million and none, respectively, as of December 31, 2003. For the qualified pension plan, the projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets were $355.1 million, $339.7 million and $428.6 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2003.
In accounting for pension and other benefit obligations and costs under the plans, the following weighted average actuarial assumptions were used:

 PENSION BENEFITS
OTHER BENEFITS
 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001 

  Discount rate6.25%6.75%7.25%6.25%6.75%7.25%
  Return on plan assets8.25%8.25%9.50%6-7.00%6-7.00%6-8.25%
  Rate of compensation increa4.50%4.50%5.0%-- -- -- 
  Medical trend rate-- -- -- 9.00%10.00%6.50%



 PENSION BENEFITS OTHER BENEFITS
BENEFIT OBLIGATION ASSUMPTIONS
200420032002 200420032002
Discount rate5.60%6.25%6.75% 5.60%6.25%6.75%
Rate of compensation increase4.50%4.50%4.50% ------
Medical trend rate------ 12.00%9.00%10.00%
    
 PENSION BENEFITS OTHER BENEFITS
BENEFIT COST ASUMPTIONS
200420032002 200420032002
Discount rate6.25%6.75%7.25% 6.25%6.75%7.25%
Return on plan assets8.25%8.25%9.25% 5-8.25%6-7.00%6-8.25%
Rate of compensation increase4.50%4.50%4.50% ------
Medical trend rate------ 9.00%10.00%6.50%

The Company has used the expected return on plan assets based on an analysis of rates of return over the past 50 years relevant to the Company’s investment mix, market conditions, inflation and other factors. The expected rate of return is reviewed annually based on these factors and adjusted accordingly.

 PENSION BENEFITS
OTHER BENEFITS
  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)   2003  2002  2001  2003  2002  2001 

  Components of net periodic benefit cost:  
  Service cost  $8,284 $8,474 $9,862 $175 $168 $243 
  Interest cost   24,406  25,858  26,734  1,828  1,930  2,022 
  Expected return on plan assets   (38,880) (43,032) (46,222) (934) (906) (947)
  Amortization of prior service cost   3,220  2,990  2,960  309  90  (34)
  Recognized net actuarial gain   (2,688) (5,120) (7,570) (341) (229) (109)
  Amortization of transition (asset) obligation   (1,104) (1,136) (1,230) 418  470  627 
  Plan curtailment   --  (1,353) --  --  1,691  -- 
  Special recognition of prior service costs   190  1,683  108  --  --  -- 

  Net pension benefit cost (income)  $(6,572)$(11,636)$(15,358)$1,455 $3,214 $1,802 

        The projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation and fair value




  PENSION BENEFITS OTHER BENEFITS 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) 2004 2003 2002 2004 2003 2002 
Components of net periodic benefit cost:
                   
Service cost $10,343 $8,284 $8,474 $189 $175 $168 
Interest cost  24,082  24,406  25,858  1,670  1,828  1,930 
Expected return on plan assets  (39,106) (38,880) (43,032) (858) (934) (906)
Amortization of prior service cost  3,189  3,220  2,990  309  309  90 
Recognized net actuarial gain  1,128  (2,688) (5,120) (239) (341) (229)
Amortization of transition (asset) obligation  (1,104) (1,104) (1,136) 418  418  470 
Plan curtailment  --  --  (1,353) --  --  1,691 
Special recognition of prior service costs  --  190  1,683  --  --  -- 
Net pension benefit cost (income) $(1,468)$(6,572)$(11,636)$1,489 $1,455 $3,214 

The aggregate expected contributions by the Company to fund the pension and other benefit plans for the year ended December 31, 20042005 are $11.1$2.0 million and an insignificant amount,$1.4 million, respectively. The full amount of the pension funding for 20042005 is for the Company’s non-qualified supplemental retirement plan.
The fair value of the plan assets of the pension benefits and other benefits are invested as follows at December 31:

 2003
2002
 PENSION
BENEFITS
OTHER
BENEFITS
PENSION
BENEFITS
OTHER
BENEFITS

Short-term investments and cash3.0%100.0%4.1%100.0%
Equity securities63.8%--55.7%-- 
Fixed income securities22.9%--31.2%-- 
Mutual funds10.3%--9.0%-- 


 2004 2003
 
PENSION
BENEFITS
OTHER
BENEFITS
 
PENSION
BENEFITS
OTHER
BENEFITS
Short-term investments and cash2.4%100.0% 3.0%100.0%
Equity securities67.8%-- 63.8%--
Fixed income securities18.2%-- 22.9%--
Mutual funds (equity and fixed income)11.6%-- 10.3%--

The expected total benefits to be paid under both plans for the next five years and the aggregate total to be paid for the five years thereafter is as follows:

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)200420052006200720082009-2013

Total benefits$ 35,697$ 25,940$ 26,939$ 28,806$ 28,202$157,821


(Dollars in Thousands)2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-2014
Total benefits$29,768 $30,202 $31,256 $32,904 $33,253 $180,516

The assumed medical inflation rate used to determine benefit obligations is 9.0%12.0% in 2004 decreasing2005 grading to 6.0% in 2007.2011. A 1% change in the assumed medical inflation rate would have the following effects:

 2003
2002
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
1%
INCREASE

1%
DECREASE

1%
INCREASE

1%
DECREASE

Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation  $589 $(529)$580 $(515)
Effect on service and interest cost components   38  (35) 36  (32)


 2004  2003 
 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
1%
INCREASE
 
1%
DECREASE
 
 1%
INCREASE
 
1%
DECREASE
 
Effect on post-retirement benefit obligation $    552  $    (477) $   589  $    (529)
Effect on service and interest cost components 31  (28) 38  (35)

The Company has a Retirement Committee that establishes investment policies, objectives and strategies for the purpose of obtaining the optimum return for the pension benefit plans, while also keeping with the assumption of prudent risk and the Retirement Committee’s total return objectives. All changes to the investment policies are reviewed and approved by the Retirement Committee prior to being implemented.
The Retirement Committee contracts with investment managers who have historically achieved above-median long-term investment performance within the risk and asset allocation limits that have been established. Interim evaluations are routinely performed with the assistance of an outside investment consultant. To obtain the desired return needed to fund the pension benefit plans, the Retirement Committee has established investment allocation percentages by asset classes as follows:

 ALLOCATION
 
  ASSET CLASSMINIMUMTARGETMAXIMUM

Domestic large capitalization equity securities30%42%50%
Domestic small capitalization equity securities-- 8%15%
Fixed-income securities20%30%40%
Foreign equity securities10%20%30%
Real estate-- -- 10%
Short-term investments and cash-- -- 5%


 ALLOCATION
ASSET CLASSMINIMUMTARGETMAXIMUM
Short-term investments and cash----5%
Equity securities40%70%95%
Fixed-income securities20%30%40%
Real estate----10%


NOTE 13.
14.
Employee Investment Plans


The Company has qualified Employee Investment Plans under which employee salary deferrals and after-tax contributions are used to purchase several different investment fund options.
Puget Energy’s contributions to the Employee Investment Plans were $7.6 million, $7.1 million $6.9 million and $8.0$6.9 million for the years 2004, 2003 and 2002, and 2001, respectively.
PSE’s contributions to the Employee Investment Plan were $6.1$6.3 million, $6.1 million and $6.8$6.1 million for the years 2004, 2003 2002 and 2001,2002, respectively. The Employee Investment Plan eligibility requirements are set forth in the plan documents.



NOTE 14.
15.
Stock-based Compensation Plans


The Company has various stock compensation plans which, prior to 2003, were accounted for according to APB No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related interpretations as allowed by SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” In 2003, the Company adopted the fair value based accounting of SFAS No. 123 using the prospective method under the guidance of SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure.” The Company will applyapplies SFAS No. 123 accounting prospectively to stock compensation awards granted infrom 2003 and future years,on, while grants that were made in years prior to 2003 will continue to beare accounted for using the intrinsic value method of APB No. 25. Total compensation expense related to the plans was $4.1 million, $6.4 million and $6.3 million in 2004, 2003 and $2.1 million in 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively.
The Company’s shareholder-approved Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTI Plan) encompasses many of the awards granted to employees. Established in 1995 and amended and restated in 1997, the LTI Plan applies to officers and key employees of the Company. Awards granted under this plan include stock awards, performance awards or other stock-based awards as defined by the plan. Any shares awarded are purchased on the open market. The maximum number of shares that may be purchased for the LTI Plan is 1,200,000.


PERFORMANCE SHARE GRANTS
Each year the Company awards performance share grants under the LTI Plan. These are granted to key employees and vest at the end of three years for grants made in 2004 and four years for grants made prior to 2004 with the final number of shares awarded, and total expense recorded, depending on a performance measure. The Company records compensation expense related to the shares based on the performance measure and changes in the market price of the stock. Compensation expense related to performance share grants was $2.5 million, $5.1 million and $5.5 million for 2004, 2003 and $2.3 million for 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. The fair value of the performance awards granted in 2004, 2003 and 2002 was $19.70, $17.29 and 2001 was $17.29, $14.82, and $17.86, respectively. There were a total of 334,608272,307 performance awards granted in 2004 of which 16,046 were also forfeited in 2004. In 2003 247,184 inand 2002 there were 349,912 and 183,881 in 2001.248,158 awards granted, respectively, of which 79,749 and 40,640, respectively, have been forfeited to date. As of December 31, 2003,2004, there are four active grant cycles for a total of 790,922730,786 share grants outstanding although they may not all be awarded.


STOCK OPTIONS
In 2002, Puget Energy’s Board of Directors granted 40,000 stock options under the LTI Plan and an additional 260,000 options outside of the LTI Plan (for a total of 300,000 non-qualified stock options) to the president and chief executive officer. These options can be exercised at the grant date market price of $22.51 per share and vest yearly over four and five years although vesting is accelerated under certain conditions. The options expire 10 years from the grant date. All 300,000 options remained outstanding at December 31, 2004, with 135,000 options exercisable. At December 31, 2003 withand 2002, 67,500 options exercisable. Noand 0 options, respectively, were exercisable at December 31, 2002.exercisable. The fair value of the options at the grant date was $3.37 per share. Following the intrinsic value method of APB 25, no compensation expense was recorded for these options. No additional options were granted in 2003.



RESTRICTED STOCK
AND RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS
In 2004, 2003 and 2002 the Company granted 40,000 shares, 11,000 shares and 30,000 shares, respectively, of restricted stock under the LTI Plan to be purchased on the open market. The 2004 grant vests 8,000 shares in three years, 12,000 shares in four years and the remaining 20,000 shares in five years. Of the 2003 shares issued, 1,000 shares vested in 2003. The2003 with the remaining shares will vestvesting evenly over the nextfollowing five years. The 2002 shares were fully vested as of December 2003. In 2002, the Company also issued 50,000 shares of restricted stock outside of the LTI Plan as approved by the Puget Energy Board of Directors. These shares were recorded as a separate component of stockholders’ equity and vest evenly over a five-year period. Compensation expense related to the restricted shares was $0.5 million, $0.6 million and $0.5 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. No restricted shares were issued in 2001. Dividends are paid on all outstanding restricted stock and are accounted for as a Puget Energy common stock dividend, not as compensation expense. The weighted average grant date fair value for all outstanding shares of restricted stock granted in 2004, 2003 and 2002 was $23.55, $23.29 and $21.94, respectively.

In 2004, the Company also granted 10,000 restricted stock units outside of the LTI Plan but subject to the terms and conditions of the plan. The units vest 2,000 shares in three years, 3,000 shares in four years and the remaining 5,000 shares in five years. These will be settled in cash as they become vested. Dividends are paid on the outstanding stock units and are accounted for as compensation expense. Compensation expense related to the restricted stock units agreement was $0.1 million in 2004. The weighted average grant date fair value for the restricted stock units was $23.55.

RETIREMENT EQUIVALENT STOCK
The Company has a retirement equivalent stock agreement in which in lieu of participating in the Company’s executive supplemental retirement plan the president and chief executive officer is granted performance-based stock equivalents in January of each year, which are deferred under the Company’s deferred compensation plan. In 2004 and 2003 the Company awarded 6,469 and 4,319 shares, respectively, which vest over a period of seven years from January 1, 2002 at 15% per year for the first six years and the remaining 10% in the seventh year. Dividends are paid on the stock equivalents accumulated in the deferred compensation account in the form of Puget Energy common stock, which is added to the deferred compensation account. Compensation expense related to the retirement equivalent stock agreement was $0.1 million in 2004 as well as in 2003. The weighted average grant date fair value for the retirement equivalent stock was $23.77 and $22.05 for 2004 and 2003 respectively. There were no grants in 2002.

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
The Company has a shareholder-approved Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) open to all employees. Offerings occur at six-month intervals at the end of which the participating employees receive shares for 85% of the lower of the stock’s fair market price at the beginning or the end of the six-month period. A maximum of 500,000 shares may be sold to employees under the plan. Prior to 2002, the Company purchased shares for the plan on the open market. As of the second offering of 2002, the Company began issuing common stock for the ESPP rather than purchasing stock. In 2004 and 2003, 52,716 and 38,940 shares were issued for the ESPP.ESPP, respectively. In 2002, 18,252 shares were issued and 19,407 shares were purchased for the plan, and in 2001, 45,659 shares were purchased.plan. At December 31, 2003, 259,6622004, 206,946 shares may still be sold to employees under the plan. Under the SFAS No. 123 accounting that the Company adopted in 2003, ESPP is considered to be compensation expense. Total compensation expense related to the ESPP was $0.2 million in 2004 and $0.2 million in 2003. Dividends are not paid on ESPP shares until they are purchased by employees and thus are accounted for as dividends, not compensation expense. The weighted average fair value of the purchase rights granted in 2004, 2003 and 2002 was $3.74, $4.25 and 2001 was $4.25, $4.19, and $4.35, respectively.


INFRASTRUX STOCK OPTION PLAN
The InfrastruX stock option plan, established in 2000, has 3,862,500 shares of InfrastruX stock authorized to be granted to officers, key employees and non-employeenon employee directors of InfrastruX. The options generally vest within four years and expire 10 years from the grant date. The following summarizes InfrastruX option information for 2004, 2003 2002 and 2001:

 2003
2002
2001
 Shares
(in thousands)
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
Shares
(in thousands)
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
Shares
(in thousands
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
 


Outstanding at beginning of year 2,643 $     4.311,995 $     4.05-- $     -- 
Granted 176 5.00725 5.002,043 4.05
Exercised -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Canceled (201)4.20(77)4.09(48)4.00
 


Outstanding at end of year 2,618 $     4.362,643 $     4.311,995 $     4.05
Options exercisable at year end 1,837 $     4.12802 $     4.02791 $     4.00
 


Weighted average fair value of options
 granted during the year
 $2.41
$2.23
$1.60

2002:


  2004 2003 2002 
  
 
Shares
(in thousands)
 
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
 
 
Shares
(in thousands)
 
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
 
 
Shares
(in thousands)
 
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
 
Outstanding at beginning of year  2,618 $4.36  2,643 $4.31  1,995 $4.05 
Granted  10  5.00  176  5.00  725  5.00 
Exercised  --  --  --  --  --  -- 
Canceled  (99) 4.75  (201) 4.20  (77) 4.09 
Outstanding at end of year  2,529 $4.35  2,618 $4.36  2,643 $4.31 
Options exercisable at year end  2,056 $4.20  1,837 $4.12  802 $4.02 
Weighted average fair value of options granted
during the year
 
 
  $2.41
 
$2.41
 
$2.23

The following summarizes InfrastruX'sInfrastruX’s outstanding option information at December 31, 2003:

 Shares
Outstanding
(in thousands)
Weighted
Average
Contractual Life
(in years)
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
 
Exercise Prices         
$4.00          1,666 7.11$4.00
$5.00             952 8.42  5.00
 
 2,618 7.59$4.36
 

2004:


 
 
Shares
Outstanding
(in thousands)
Weighted
Average
Contractual Life
(in years)
 
Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
Exercise Prices   
$4.001,6416.10$ 4.00
$5.008887.475.00
 2,5296.59$ 4.35

Stock options awarded under the InfrastruX plan were generally granted at the InfrastruX market price on the date of grant although some options have beenwere granted at a discount requiring InfrastruX to record compensation expense. With those options and the prospective adoption of SFAS No. 123 fair value accounting in 2003, InfrastruX also recorded compensation expense related to options granted in 2003. Compensation expense2004, 2003 and 2002 of $0.1 million, $0.2 million and $0.1 million, related to stock options was recorded in 2003 and 2002, respectively.


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN
The Company has a director stock plan createdapproved in 1997 and effective beginning in 1998, for all non-employeenon employee directors of Puget Energy and PSE. Under the plan, which has a 10-year term, non-employeeand which, subject to shareholder approval, will be amended and restated at the May 2005 Annual Meeting, non employee directors receive a minimum of two-thirds of their quarterly retainer fees in CompanyPuget Energy stock except that 100% of quarterly retainers are paid in CompanyPuget Energy stock until the director holds a number of shares equal in value to two years of common stock in value of their retainer.retainer fees. Directors may optionally receive their entire retainer in CompanyPuget Energy stock. The compensation expense related to the director stock plan was $0.6 million, $0.4 million and $0.2 million in 2004, 2003 and $0.1 million in 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. The Company issues new shares or purchases stock for this plan on the open market up to a maximum of 100,000 shares. As of December 31, 2004, 15,230 shares had been issued or purchased for the director stock plan and 64,838 deferred, for a total of 80,068 shares. As of December 31, 2003 9,902and 2002 the number of shares that had been purchased for the director stock plan was 9,902 and 6,916, respectively, and the number that had been deferred was 48,219 deferred,and 36,117, respectively, for a total of 58,121 shares.

OTHER PLANS
        In addition to current stock compensation plans, the Company also has outstandingand 43,033 shares, related to two plans that were in effect prior to the 1997 merger between Puget Sound Power and Light (PSP&L) and Washington Energy Company (WECO). There are 2,400 vested, unexercised stock appreciation rights from the PSP&L Incentive Plan Awards granted to executivesrespectively.




The Company used the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the fair value of certain stock-based awards to employees. The following assumptions were used for awards granted in 2004, 2003 2002 and 2001:

 200320022001

Stock options 
  Risk-free interest rate     --4.32%    --
  Expected lives - years     --4.50    --
  Expected stock volatility     --23.62%    --
  Dividend yield     --5.00%    --

InfrastruX stock option plan 
  Risk-free interest rate 2.80%4.05%4.87%
  Expected lives - years 4.004.004.00
  Expected stock volatility 60.00%60.00%50.00%

Performance awards 
  Risk-free interest rate 2.35%4.00%4.99%
  Expected lives - years 4.004.004.00
  Expected stock volatility 23.85%23.71%20.76%
  Dividend yield 4.86%8.85%7.67%

Employee Stock Purchase Plan 
  Risk-free interest rate 1.07%1.65%4.26%
  Expected lives - years 0.500.500.50
  Expected stock volatility 19.47%26.97%19.04%
  Dividend yield 4.39%5.81%7.72%


2002:


  200420032002
Stock options          
Risk-free interest rate  --  --  4.32%
Expected lives- years
  --  --  4.50 
Expected stock volatility  --  --  23.62%
Dividend yield  --  --  5.00%
InfrastruX stock option plan          
Risk-free interest rate  2.8% 2.8% 4.05%
Expected lives- years
  4.0  4.0  4.0 
Expected stock volatility  70.0% 70.0% 70.0%
Performance awards          
Risk-free interest rate  2.59% 2.35% 4.0%
Expected lives- years
  3.0  4.0  4.0 
Expected stock volatility  22.24% 23.85% 23.71%
Dividend yield  4.45% 4.86% 8.85%
Employee Stock Purchase Plan          
Risk-free interest rate  1.28% 1.07% 1.65%
Expected lives - years  0.5  0.5  0.5 
Expected stock volatility  9.89% 19.47% 26.97%
Dividend yield  4.42% 4.39% 5.81%


NOTE 15.
16.
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

        The Company has adopted


SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended by SFAS No. 138 and SFAS No. 149. SFAS No. 133149, requires that all contracts considered to be derivative instruments be recorded on the balance sheet at their fair value. The Company enters into both physical and financial contracts to manage its energy resource portfolio and interest rate exposure including forward physical and financial contracts, option contracts and swaps. The majority of these contracts qualify for the normal purchase and normal sale exception.
Those contracts that do not meet normal purchase normal sale exception or cash flow hedge criteria are marked-to-market to current earnings in the income statement, subject to deferral under SFAS No. 71 “Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation,” (SFAS No. 71) for energy related derivatives due to the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) mechanism.
The nature of serving regulated electric customers with its wholesale portfolio of owned and contracted resources exposes the Company and its customers to some volumetric and commodity price risks within the sharing mechanism of the PCA. The Company’s energy risk management function monitors and manages these risks using analytical models and tools. 
The Company is not engaged in the business of assuming risk for the purpose of speculative trading revenues. Therefore, wholesale market transactions are focused on balancing the Company’s energy portfolio, reducing costs and risks where feasible, and reducing volatility in wholesale costs and margin in the portfolio. In order to manage risks effectively, the Company enters into physical and financial transactions, which are appropriate for the service territory of the Company and are relevant to its regulated electric and gas portfolios.
The Company’s energy risk management staff develops hedging strategies for the Company’s energy supply portfolio. The first priority is to obtain reliable supply for delivery to the Company’s retail customers. The second priority is to protect against unwanted risk exposure. The third priority is to optimize excess capacity or flexibility within the energy portfolio.
The Company has entered into master netting agreements with counterparties when available to mitigate credit exposure to those counterparties. The Company believes that entering into such agreements reduces risk of settlement default for the ability to make only one net payment. In addition, the Company believes risk is mitigated with an improved position in potential counterparty bankruptcy situations due to a consistent netting approach.
At December 31, 2004, the Company was subject to a range of netting provisions, including both stand alone agreements and the provisions associated with the Western Systems Power Pool agreement of which many energy suppliers in the western United States are a part.
For the year ended December 31, 2003,2004, the Company recorded a decreasean increase in earnings of approximately $0.1$0.5 million compared to an increasea decrease of $11.6$0.1 million for 2002.2003. Of the 20022004 gain, $10.5$0.7 million unrealized gain represented the reversal of unrealized losses on gas hedge contractscash flow hedges that were de-designated and reclassified from other comprehensive income into earnings. As of December 31, 2004, the Company had an unrealized loss recorded in other comprehensive income of $6.5 million after-tax related to contracts which meet the criteria for designation as cash flow hedges under SFAS No. 133. In 2004, a portion of the total unrealized gain of cash flow hedge transactions in other comprehensive income and marked-to-market gain in the fourthincome statement were deferred under SFAS No. 71 due to the Company expecting to reach the $40 million cap under the PCA mechanism in the first quarter of 2001 and2005. When these transactions are realized they will be reflected in the reversal of the mark-to-market unrealized loss on physical electric contracts at December 31, 2001 that were settled in 2002.PCA mechanism calculation. As of December 31, 2003, the Company had an unrealized gain recorded in other comprehensive income of $0.2 million after-tax(net of tax) related to energy contracts which meet the criteria for designation as cash flow hedges under SFAS No. 133. The amount of cash flow hedges associated with these energy contracts that will reverse and be settled into the income statement during 2004 will be immaterial. As of December 31, 2002, the Company had a long-term unrealized gain recorded in other comprehensive income of $9.9 million after-tax and a short-term unrealized loss of $2.4 million after-tax related to contracts which meet the criteria for designation as cash flow hedges under SFAS No. 133.
        In addition, the Company has adopted SFAS No. 149, which2005 is effective for all contracts entered into or modified after June 30, 2003 except for certain hedging relationships designated after June 30, 2003. SFAS No. 149 clarifies financial accounting and reporting for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in contracts and for hedging activities under SFAS No. 133. The Company implemented SFAS No. 149 in the third quarter of 2003 with no significant impact on the financial statements.
        On January 1, 2001, the Company recognized the cumulative effect of adopting SFAS No. 133 by recording a liability and an offsetting after-tax decrease to current earnings of approximately $14.7 million for the fair value of electric derivatives that did not meet hedge criteria. The Company also recorded an asset and an offsetting increase to other comprehensive income of approximately $286.9 million for the fair value of derivative instruments that did meet hedge criteria on the implementation date.
$0.7 million.
PSE has had two contractsa contract with a counterparty whose debt ratings werehave been below investment grade since 2002. The first contract is a fixed for floating price natural gas swap contract for one of its electric generating facilities. In the fourth quarter of 2003, PSE agreed to a novation of this contract to a new counterparty which has strong credit ratings. As a result of the novation, the collateral that was held by the original counterparty was returned. The fixed for floating price natural gas swap contract has been designated since inception in 2000 as a qualifying cash flow hedge. The second contract, a physical gas supply contract for one of PSE’s electric generating facilities, was marked-to-market beginning in the fourth quarter of 2003. ThisAlthough the counterparty continues to fully perform on the physical supply contract, the counterparty’s credit ratings have remained weak. Prior to October 1, 2003, the contract was previously designated as a normal purchase under SFAS No. 133. PSE has concluded that it is appropriate to reserve the marked-to-marketmark-to-market gain on this contract due to the credit quality of the counterparty in accordance with SFAS No. 133 guidance, as management deemed that delivery is not probable through the term of the contract, which expires in December 2008.

There was no impact on earnings for the 12 months ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

In the first quarter 2004, the counterparty of another physical gas supply contract for one of PSE’s electric generating facilities notified PSE that it would be unable to deliver physical gas supply beginning in November 2005 through the end of the contract in June 2008. Since physical delivery for the life of the contract was no longer probable, the contract no longer met the criteria for normal purchase exception under SFAS No. 133. Therefore, the contract was marked-to-market in the first quarter 2004, with an offsetting reserve for the portion of the mark-to-market gain applicable to the impaired period of November 2005 through June 2008. In October 2004, PSE and the counterparty reached a settlement on the non-deliverable period of November 2005 through June 2008. The agreement allows PSE to recover a portion of the present value of the difference in future market prices of physical gas and the original contract price, for a total recovery of approximately $10.1 million. In the fourth quarter 2004, an accounting order was approved by the Washington Commission to defer the counterparty settlement amount as a regulatory liability and amortize the benefit over the period of November 2005 through June 2008 as a reduction in Electric Generation Fuel expense. The amended contract meets the criteria for normal purchase exception under SFAS No. 133 since delivery for the life of the contract is probable. In October 2004, PSE entered into a new contract with another counterparty for the period November 2005 through June 2008 to replace the physical gas supply from the previously mentioned amended contract. This new contract meets the normal purchase exception under SFAS No. 133.
The Company entered into treasury lock transactions to hedge against the potential rising treasury rate component of the interest rate on planned debt issuances. The purpose of the treasury lock is to lock in the base component of the interest rate on the planned issuance at current period favorable levels.
In the third quarter 2004, the Company entered into two treasury lock contracts to hedge against potential rising interest rate exposure for a debt offering anticipated to be performed in the first half of 2005. A treasury lock is a financial arrangement between the Company and a counterparty whereby one of the parties will be required to make a payment to the other party on a specific valuation date based upon the change in value of a 30 year treasury bond. If interest rates rise related to the hedged debt from the date of issuance of the treasury lock instruments, the Company would receive a payment from the counterparty for the change in the bond value. Alternatively, if interest rates decrease related to the hedged debt from the date of issuance of the treasury lock instruments, the Company would pay the counterparty for the change in bond value. These treasury lock contracts were designated under SFAS No. 133 criteria as cash flow hedges, with all changes in market value for each reporting period being presented net of tax in other comprehensive income. When these treasury lock contracts are settled upon issuance of debt, any gain or loss will be amortized from other comprehensive income to interest expense over the 30 year life of the issued debt. At December 31, 2004, the unrealized loss associated with these two treasury lock contracts was $11.3 million ($7.4 million net of tax) and is included in other comprehensive income. Both treasury rate lock hedges will settle in 2005.


NOTE 16.
17.
Acquisitions and Intangibles (Puget Energy Only)


During 2002, InfrastruX acquired 100% of three companies based in Texas for a total price of $49.7 million, and during the second quarter of 2003 acquired 100% of one additional company based in New Mexico for $11.8 million. InfrastruX made no acquisitions in 2004. All purchases were funded in the form of cash and preferred or common stock. The 2003 acquisition includes a contingency which requires InfrastruX to make additional payments if certain 2003 and 2004 earnings measures are met. If these earnings measures are met, InfrastruX would record the additional amount as goodwill. As of December 31, 2003, no payments were required.
These companies provide utility infrastructure services which are relevant to InfrastruX’s operating strategy including: installing, replacing and restoring underground cables and pipes for utilities and telecommunications providers; pipeline construction, maintenance and rehabilitation services for the natural gas and petroleum industries, including directional drilling and vacuum excavation; and distribution and transmission-oriented overhead electric construction services to electric utilities and cooperatives.
The acquisitions have been accounted for using the purchase method of accounting and, accordingly, the operating results of these companies have been included in Puget Energy’s consolidated financial statements since their acquisition dates. Goodwill additions representing the excess of cost over the net tangible and identifiable intangible assets at the time of purchase were approximately $7.7 million in 2003 and $23.5 million in 2002.
        During 2001, goodwill was being amortized on a straight-line basis using a 30-year life except for goodwill on two acquisitions made after June 30, 2001, which were not amortized per SFAS No. 142. With Of the implementation of SFAS No. 142 on January 1, 2002, Puget Energy discontinued amortizing goodwill and reclassified $5.2 million of intangible assets that no longer met the criteria of identifiable intangible assets to goodwill. As required by SFAS No. 142, Puget Energy performed an initial impairment review of goodwill in the first quarter of 2002 and annual fourth-quarter impairment reviews thereafter and determined that no impairment had taken place. In addition to the annual review, Puget Energy will perform an impairment review at the time an event or circumstance arises that would indicate the fair value would be below its carrying value. Goodwill amortization for 2001, including amortization on the intangible assets that were reclassifiedadditions to goodwill in 2003 and 2002, was approximately $3.4 million. Theno amounts were deductible for calculating income statement effects of discontinuing amortization of goodwill for the comparative periods are as follows for Puget Energy:


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)2003 2002 2001 

Reported income for common stock$      116,197 $      110,052 $       98,426 
Add back goodwill amortization, net of tax-- -- 2,826 
 
Adjusted income for common stock$      116,197 $      110,052 $      101,252 
 
Basic earnings per share
  Reported income for common stock$             1.23$             1.24$             1.14
  Add back goodwill amortization-- -- 0.03
 
  Adjusted income for common stock$             1.23$             1.24$             1.17
 
Diluted earnings per share
        Reported income for common stock$             1.22$             1.24$             1.14
        Add back goodwill amortization-- -- 0.03
 
        Adjusted income for common stock$             1.22$             1.24$             1.17
 

        Identifiable intangible assets acquired as a result of acquisitions of companies are amortized over the expected useful lives of the assets, which range from 5 to 20 years. In 2003 a total of $2.1 million was added to intangible assets — assigned $0.1 million to patents with an amortization period of 17.0 years, $1.7 million to contractual customer relationships with an amortization period of 10.0 years and $0.3 million to covenant not to compete with an amortization period of five years. The total weighted average amortization period for the 2003 additions is 9.6 years. In 2002, a total of $4.5 million was added to intangible assets — assigned $0.3 million to patents, $3.1 million to contractual customer relationships and $1.1 million to covenant not to compete. The total weighted average amortization period for the 2002 additions is eight years.

 
AT DECEMBER 31, 2003
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
Gross
Intangibles
Accumulated
Amoritization
Net
Intangibles

Covenant not to compete$  4,178    $2,009    $  2,169    
Developed technology14,190    2,454    11,736    
Contractual customer relationships4,702    747    3,955    
Patents915    68    847    

 Total$23,985    $5,278    $18,707    
 
 
AT DECEMBER 31, 2002
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
Gross
Intangibles
Accumulated
Amoritization
Net
Intangibles

Covenant not to compete$  3,908    $1,105    $  2,803    
Developed technology14,190    1,744    12,446    
Contractual customer relationships3,042    383    2,659    
Patents793    49    744    

 Total$21,933    $3,281    $18,652    
 

        The identifiable intangible amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2003 was $2.1 million compared to $1.9 million and $1.1 million for 2002 and 2001, respectively. The identifiable intangible assets amortization for future periods based on the current acquisitions will be:

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)20042005200620072008

Future intangible amortization$ 2,101$ 2,075$ 1,746$ 1,363$ 1,340

tax expense.

The pro forma combined revenues,revenue, net income and earnings per common share of Puget Energy presented below give effect to the acquisitions as if they had occurred on January 1, 2001.2002. These results are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations that would have occurred had the acquisitions of these companies been consummated for the period for which they are being given effect.

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
(UNAUDITED)
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
200320022001

Operating revenues$     2,505,523$     2,469,122$     3,056,824
Net income for common116,636112,813104,338
Basic earnings per common share$  1.23$  1.28$  1.21
Diluted earnings per common share$  1.22$  1.27$  1.20

There were no acquisitions in 2004.


(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
(UNAUDITED)
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 
 
 
2003
 
 
 
2002
 
Operating revenues $2,396,802 $2,391,981 
Net income  116,636  112,813 
Basic earnings per common share $1.23 $1.28 
Diluted earnings per common share $1.22 $1.27 


NOTE 17.18.Goodwill and Intangibles (Puget Energy Only)

Effective January 1, 2002, Puget Energy adopted SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” which required all goodwill amortization to cease on January 1, 2002. Puget Energy allocates goodwill to reporting units based on the excess purchase price over tangible and identifiable intangible assets. SFAS No. 142 also requires Puget Energy to perform an annual impairment review of goodwill. In addition to the annual review, Puget Energy is required to perform an impairment review at the time an event or circumstance arises that would indicate the fair value would be below its carrying value. In the fourth quarter 2004, as part of its annual goodwill review, Puget Energy recorded a non-cash goodwill impairment of $91.2 million ($76.6 million after tax and after minority interest) to operating expenses related to its investment in InfrastruX. The valuation of the goodwill was based on the present value of the future cash flows of estimated earnings of InfrastruX which reflect prospective market price information from prospective buyers. In 2004, Puget Energy began evaluating its strategic options for its InfrastruX investment and on February 8, 2005 Puget Energy decided to exit this utility construction services business.
Identifiable assets acquired as a result of acquisitions of companies are amortized based on the expected pattern of use or on a straight-line basis over the expected periods to be benefited, which ranges from 5 to 20 years. In 2004, a patent was completed and added to intangibles for $0.1 million with an amortization period of 16 years. In 2003, a total of $2.1 million was added to intangible assets

- assigned $0.1 million to patents with an amortization period of 17 years, $1.7 million to contractual customer relationships with an amortization period of 10 years and $0.3 million to covenant not to compete with an amortization period of five years. The total weighted average amortization period for the 2003 additions is 9.6 years.


AT DECEMBER 31, 2004
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
Gross
Intangibles
 
Accumulated
Amortization
 
Net
Intangibles
 
Covenant not to compete $4,178 $2,748 $1,430 
Developed technology  14,190  3,163  11,027 
Contractual customer relationships  4,702  1,374  3,328 
Patents  986  91  895 
Total $24,056 $7,376 $16,680 


AT DECEMBER 31, 2003
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
Gross
Intangibles
 
Accumulated
Amortization
 
Net
Intangibles
 
Covenant not to compete $4,178 $2,009 $2,169 
Developed technology  14,190  2,454  11,736 
Contractual customer relationships  4,702  747  3,955 
Patents  915  68  847 
Total $23,985 $5,278 $18,707 

The identifiable intangible amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2004 was $2.1 million compared to $2.1 million and $1.9 million for 2003 and 2002, respectively. The identifiable intangible assets amortization for future periods based on the current acquisitions will be:

(Dollars in Thousands)20052006200720082009
Future intangible amortization$ 2,207$1,732$1,385$1,301 $1,276


NOTE 19.Tenaska Disallowance

The Washington Commission issued an order on May 13, 2004 determining that PSE did not prudently manage gas costs for the Tenaska electric generating plant and ordered PSE to adjust its PCA deferral account to reflect a disallowance of $25.6 million for the PCA 1 period (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003), which was recorded by PSE as a Purchased Electricity expense in the second quarter 2004. The order also established guidelines for future recovery of Tenaska costs. The amounts were determined to be a $25.6 million disallowance for the PCA 1 period and an estimated disallowance of $11.3 million for the PCA 3 period (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005), based upon applying the Washington Commission’s methodology of 50% disallowance on the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset due to projected costs exceeding the benchmark during the period. For the PCA 3 period, approximately $5.6 million was disallowed in the period July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, primarily as a reduction to Electric Operating Revenue. While the Washington Commission did not expressly address the disallowance for the PCA 2 period (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004), PSE estimated the disallowance for the PCA 2 period to be approximately $12.2 million if the Washington Commission were to follow the same methodology as they have ordered for the PCA 3 period. Therefore, PSE recorded a $12.2 million disallowance to Purchased Electricity expense in the second quarter 2004 for the 50% disallowance of the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset in accordance with the Washington Commission’s methodology discussed in their order of May 13, 2004 for a cumulative impact on earnings of $43.4 million in 2004 for the PCA 1, PCA 2 and PCA 3 periods. As a result of the disallowance recorded, the PCA customer deferral was expensed and a reserve was established for amounts not previously deferred under the PCA mechanism. The reserve balance as of December 31, 2004 was $3.2 million, which is expected to be utilized in 2005 as excess power costs are shared through the PCA mechanism.
PSE filed the PCA 2 period compliance filing in August 2004 and received an order from the Washington Commission on February 23, 2005. In the PCA 2 compliance order, the Washington Commission approved the Washington Commission staff’s recommendation for an additional return related to the Tenaska regulatory asset in the amount of $6.1 million related to the period July 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. Washington Commission staff’s recommendation was opposed by certain other parties. This amount alters the PCA deferral and is subject to reconsideration and appeal by other parties. Parties have 10 days from February 23, 2005 to file for reconsideration and 30 days to appeal the order. Once the statutory appeal process has concluded and the Washington Commission issues its final order, PSE will determine if recording a regulatory asset is appropriate.
In the May 13, 2004 order, the Washington Commission established guidelines and a benchmark to determine PSE’s recovery on the Tenaska regulatory asset starting with the PCA 3 period (July 1, 2004) through the expiration of the Tenaska contract in the year 2011. The benchmark is defined as the original cost of the Tenaska contract adjusted to reflect the 1.2% disallowance from a 1994 Prudence Order.

Below is a summary of the Tenaska disallowances by quarter through December 31, 2004:

 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
QUARTER ENDING
  
7/02 - 6/03
PCA 1
(ordered/final
)
 
7/03 - 6/04
PCA 2
(estimated
)
 
7/04 - 12/04
PCA 3
(estimated
)
 
Total
 
June 30, 2004 $25.6 $12.2 $-- $37.8 
September 30, 2004  --  --  2.8  2.8 
December 31, 2004  --  --  2.8  2.8 
Total $25.6 $12.2 $5.6 $43.4 

The Washington Commission guidelines for determining future recovery of the Tenaska costs (gas costs, recovery of the Tenaska regulatory asset and return on the Tenaska regulatory asset) are as follows:
1.  The Washington Commission will determine if PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent through the PCA compliance filings.
2.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent, and if PSE’s actual Tenaska costs fall at or below the benchmark, it will recover fully its Tenaska costs.
3.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan and gas purchases for Tenaska are prudent, but its actual Tenaska costs exceed the benchmark, PSE will only recover 50% of the lesser of:
a)  actual Tenaska costs that exceed the benchmark or;
b)  the return on the Tenaska regulatory asset.
4.  If PSE’s gas purchasing plan or gas purchases are found to be imprudent in a future proceeding, PSE risks disallowance of any and all Tenaska costs.

The Washington Commission confirmed that if the Tenaska gas costs are deemed prudent, PSE will recover the full amount of actual gas costs and the recovery of the Tenaska regulatory asset even if the benchmark is exceeded.


NOTE 20.Colstrip Matters

In September 2004, the owners of Colstrip Units 1 & 2 (PSE and PPL Montana) entered into a tentative settlement agreement with certain homeowners in the Colstrip town site area concerning a lawsuit filed in May 2003. In December 2004, the plaintiffs retained new counsel and postponed further settlement discussions until more discovery is completed. The lawsuit alleged certain domestic water wells may have been contaminated by seepage from a Colstrip Units 1 & 2 effluent holding pond. The tentative settlement agreement would require extending municipal water to the homeowners and abandoning the existing wells. The total estimated cost of the settlement ranges from $1.4 million to $1.5 million. As a result of this tentative settlement agreement, PSE recorded a $0.7 million reserve in the third quarter 2004 for its 50% ownership of the Colstrip Units 1 & 2 project. The settlement agreement would not resolve certain other claims by residents within the city limits. PSE cannot predict the outcome or any potential financial impact of the claims by the residents within the city limits at this time.
In June 2004, PSE and Western Energy Company (WECO), the supplier of coal to Colstrip Units 1 & 2, entered into a binding arbitration and settled a dispute concerning prices paid for coal supplied. The binding decision retroactively set a new baseline cost per ton of coal purchased by PSE for Colstrip Units 1 & 2 supplied from July 31, 2001, and is applicable for the remaining term of the coal supply agreement through December 2009. The decision resulted in a $6.9 million charge that was recorded in the second quarter 2004. Of the $6.9 million charge, $5.0 million was included in the PCA mechanism. PSE had previously accrued a $1.6 million reserve in the fourth quarter 2003 related to the arbitration.
On April 29, 2004, the Minerals Management Service of the United States Department of the Interior (MMS) issued an order to WECO to pay additional royalties concerning coal purchased by PSE for Colstrip Units 3 & 4. The order seeks payment of an additional $1.1 million in royalties for coal mined from federal land between 1997 and June 30, 2000. During that period, PSE’s coal price was reduced by a settlement agreement entered into in February 1997 among PSE, WECO and Montana Power Company that resolved disputes that were then pending. The order seeks to impute the price charged to PSE based on the other Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners’ contractual amounts. PSE is supporting WECO’s appeal of the order, but is also evaluating the basis of the claim. PSE accrued a loss reserve in the amount of $1.1 million in connection with this matter in the second quarter 2004.
In addition, the MMS issued two orders to WECO in 2002 and 2003 to pay additional royalties concerning coal sold to Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners. The orders assert that additional royalties are owed as a result of WECO not paying royalties in connection with revenue received by WECO from the Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners under a coal transportation agreement during the period October 1, 1991 through December 31, 2001. PSE’s share of the alleged additional royalties is $1.8 million, which is equivalent to PSE’s 25% ownership interest in Colstrip Units 3 & 4. Other parties may attempt to assert claims against WECO if the MMS position prevails. The transportation agreement provides for the construction and operation of a conveyor system that runs several miles from the mine to Colstrip Units 3 & 4. WECO has appealed these orders and PSE is monitoring the process. PSE believes that Colstrip Units 3 & 4 owners have reasonable defenses in this matter based upon its review. Neither the outcome of this matter nor the associated costs can be predicted at this time.
On December 5, 2003, Colstrip Units 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 received an information request from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relating to their compliance with the Clean Air Act New Source Review regulations. PSE is currently in discussions with the EPA concerning the information request. Neither the outcome of this matter nor any potential associated costs can be predicted at this time.


NOTE 21.Taxes Other Than Income Taxes

PUGET ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Taxes other than income taxes:       
Real estate and personal property $45,121 $45,660 $48,890 
State business  82,408  75,523  77,527 
Municipal and occupational  72,405  64,861  67,770 
Other  39,479  38,273  37,029 
Total taxes other than income taxes $239,413 $224,317 $231,216 
Charged to:          
Operating expense $221,980 $208,395 $215,429 
Other accounts, including construction work in progress  17,433  15,922  15,787 
Total taxes other than income taxes $239,413 $224,317 $231,216 

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
2004
 
 
2003
 
 
2002
 
Taxes other than income taxes:       
Real estate and personal property $43,843 $44,757 $48,408 
State business  82,408  75,524  77,527 
Municipal and occupational  72,405  64,861  67,770 
Other  27,766  25,638  24,463 
Total taxes other than income taxes $226,422 $210,780 $218,168 
Charged to:          
Operating expense $208,989 $194,857 $202,381 
Other accounts, including construction work in progress  17,433  15,923  15,787 
Total taxes other than income taxes $226,422 $210,780 $218,168 


NOTE 22.Other

On September 24, 2004, the Washington Commission approved PSE’s request for a Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA) mechanism rate increase filed on August 31, 2004. The approved request will increase rates and revenues by approximately 17.6% or $121.7 million annually. The increase in PGA mechanism rates was to recover higher market prices of natural gas sold to customers. The PGA mechanism passes through to customers increases or decreases in the gas supply portion of the natural gas service rates based upon changes in gas prices. PSE’s gas margin and net income are not affected by the change in PGA mechanism rates.
In 2003, the Washington Commission’s Pipeline Safety staff conducted a natural gas standard inspection for three counties within Washington State in which PSE operates gas pipelines. The inspection included a review of procedures, records and operations and maintenance activities. On June 29, 2004, the Washington Commission issued a complaint to PSE related to that inspection, alleging certain violations of Washington Commission regulations. In December 2004, PSE and the Washington Commission resolved the issues. PSE agreed to a penalty of $0.5 million, and also agreed to update certain natural gas operating practices. In addition, the resolution included the potential for future penalties of up to $0.2 million in the next ten years if certain operational goals are not met. The Washington Commission approved the settlement on January 31, 2005.
In September 2004, a natural gas fire destroyed a home and took the life of a PSE customer. The cause of the fire remains under investigation by PSE, the Washington Commission and other parties. PSE has tendered the matter to its general liability insurer. Neither the potential regulatory nor litigation outcomes of this matter nor the final associated costs can be predicted at this time.
On February 18, 2005, the Washington Commission approved a 3.5% general tariff gas rate case increase and a 4% general tariff electric rate case increase. The increases were $26.3 million annually for gas customers and $56.6 million for electric customers effective March 4, 2005. In the order, the Washington Commission also approved a capital structure of 43% common equity with a return on common equity of 10.3%.
On April 23, 2004, the acquisition of a 49.85% interest in the Frederickson 1 generating facility was approved by FERC. Prior to that approval, on April 7, 2004, the Washington Commission had issued an order in PSE’s power cost only rate case granting approval for the acquisition of the Frederickson 1 generating facility. As a result of these approvals, PSE completed the acquisition in the second quarter 2004 and added $80.8 million in utility plant. In its order, the Washington Commission found the acquisition to be prudent and the costs associated with the generating facility reasonable. The costs associated with the generating facility, including projected baseline gas costs, are approved for recovery in rates. On May 13, 2004, the Washington Commission also approved other adjustments to power costs that resulted in an increase of cost recovery in rates of $44.1 million annually, beginning May 24, 2004, which includes the ownership, operation and fuel costs of the Frederickson 1 generating facility.
In December 2003, PSE notified FERC that it rejected the 1997 license for the White River project because the 1997 license contained terms and conditions that rendered ongoing operations of the project uneconomical relative to alternative resources. As a result, generation of electricity ceased at the White River project on January 15, 2004. At December 31, 2004, the White River project net book value totaled $65.1 million, which included $46.4 million of net utility plant, $14.8 million of capitalized FERC licensing costs, $3.1 million of costs related to construction work in progress and $0.8 million related to dam operation and safety. PSE is sought recovery of the relicensing, other construction work in progress and dam operations and safety costs totaling $18.7 million in its general rate filing of April 2004, over a 10-year amortization period. In the third quarter 2004, the Washington Commission staff recommended that PSE be allowed recovery of the White River net utility plant costs noted above, but defer any amortization of the FERC licensing and other costs until all costs and any sales proceeds are known. In its February 18, 2005 general rate case order, the Washington Commission found this treatment reasonable, and adopted all of the staff recommendations.    
PSE has minority ownership interests in twoa venture capital fundsfund established as a limited liability corporationscorporation that seekseeks long-term capital appreciation by making capital investments in energy sector related businesses. The Company’s investment in these two venture capital funds totaled $3.6 million at December 31, 2003. The Company’s ownership interest in both fundsthe fund is less than 20% and the managing members of the limited liability corporationscorporation have sole discretion over fund operations, management and investment decisions. Under the terms of the limited liability corporation agreementsagreement establishing the funds, one fund, terminated December 31, 2003 and the otherfund terminates December 31, 2007. The Company’s recordedcarrying value of the investment in the fund that terminated on December 31, 2003, and is in the process of distributing assets to investing members, was $1.5totaled $1.9 million at December 31, 2003. Subsequent to December 31, 2003, the Company has realized a total of $1.2 million in cash proceeds and anticipates realizing the remaining balance of $0.3 million by the end of 2004.
        The carrying value of the Company’s investment in the fund that will terminate on December 31, 2007 was $2.1 million at December 31, 2003,2004, which reflects the impact of recordingincludes a $6.1 million pre-tax loss on the Company’s original cost basis in the fourth quarter 2003. Based on the guidance from EITF No. 03-16, the Company started accounting for its investment in the fund using the equity method accounting. The adoption of the equity method had no cumulative effect on earnings for the year ended December 31, 2004 as PSE had been carrying this investment at fair value, which represents the equity basis, since December 31, 2003. The Company’s future funding obligation to this fund is $0.4$0.3 million. The fund manager advised investors that it intended to record unrealized losses
On November 1, 1999, PSE acquired Encogen Northwest, LP (Encogen) whose sole asset is a natural gas-fired cogeneration facility located in Washington State. With the approval of certain portfolio assets in its calendar year 2003 financial statements. As a result of this action, the Company adjusted its carrying basis to the $2.1 million fair value of the Company’s capital account as provided by the fund manager as of December 31, 2003.
        In the power cost only rate case, Washington Commission staff and other parties, including the group Industrial Customers of the Northwest Utilities (ICNU), filed testimony seeking downward adjustments to PSE’s proposed electric rate increase of $64.4 million. Among other things, they propose that a significant amount of PSE’s future fuel costs associated with an electric generating facility be disallowed for recovery in electric rates based upon their interpretation of a 1994 Commission Order and a contention that PSE should have secured fixed-price fuel supply options that were available in late 1997. After factoring in such proposed fuel supply disallowances and certain lower estimates of future power costs which would be trued-up to incurred actuals through PSE’s PCA mechanism, the Washington Commission, staff recommends a net rate increasethe Encogen facility has been operated as part of $7.5 million as comparedPSE’s least cost generation dispatch portfolio to PSE’s requested $64.4 million. If, after hearings onserve its native load obligations since it was acquired in 1999. Two wholly-owned subsidiaries of PSE, GP Acquisition Corporation and LP Acquisition Corporation, are the matter, the Commission were to adopt the Washington Commission staff’s or ICNU’s recommendations, the proposed fuel cost disallowances would adversely affect PSE’s future financial performance.
        PSE believes that the fuel cost disallowances proposed by the Washington Commission staff are legallygeneral and factually deficient, andlimited partners of Encogen, respectively. On December 29, 2004, PSE filed its rebuttal case on February 13, 2004. The Washington Commission staff is independent from the Washington Commission in such a litigated proceeding and its positions do not represent an indicationapplication with FERC pursuant to Section 203 of the final outcomeFPA to transfer the Encogen facility to PSE and eliminate the various subsidiaries via an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger). On February 15, 2005, FERC issued an order authorizing the proceeding. The hearing was heldEncogen plant to be transferred to PSE. PSE anticipates completing the merger in late February and the resolution of the power only rate case is expected by mid-April 2004.2005.

        In December 2003, PSE notified FERC that it rejected the 1997 license for the White River Project. As a result, generation of electricity ceased at the White River Project on January 15, 2004. The 1997 license would have made the Whiter River generation project uneconomical to produce electricity. In the same proceeding described above, the Washington Commission will be ruling on an Accounting Order that will allow for rate recovery of the unrecovered investment in the White River generating project. The Washington Commission staff’s testimony in PSE’s power cost only rate case supports PSE’s petition for recovery of the investment in the White River Project. At December 31, 2003, the White River Project net book value totaled $68.4 million, which included $47.9 million of net utility plant, $15.2 million of capitalized FERC licensing costs and $5.3 million of costs related to construction work in progress. The FERC licensing costs and construction work in progress charges were deferred to a regulatory asset.



NOTE 18.
23.
Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS – ELECTRIC


For the year ended December 31, 2003,2004, approximately 19.9%23.1% of the Company’s energy output was obtained at an average cost of approximately $0.01641$0.0146 per kWh through long-term contracts with several of the Washington Public Utility Districts (PUDs) owning hydroelectric projects on the Columbia River.
The purchase of power from the Columbia River projects is on a “cost-of-service” basis under which the Company pays a proportionate share of the annual cost of each project in direct proportion to the amount of power annually purchased by the Company from such project. Such payments are not contingent upon the projects being operable. These projects are financed through substantially level debt service payments, and their annual costs should not vary significantly over the term of the contracts unless additional financing is required to meet the costs of major maintenance, repairs or replacements, or license requirements. The Company’s share of the costs and the output of the projects is subject to reduction due to various withdrawal rights of the PUDs and others over the lives of the contracts.
As of December 31, 2003,2004, the Company was entitled to purchase portions of the power output of the PUDs’ projects as set forth in the following tabulation:

 BONDS
OUTSTANDING
COMPANY'S ANNUAL AMOUNT
PURCHASABLE (APPROXIMATE)

PROJECTCONTRACT
EXP. DATE
LICENSE1
EXP. DATE
12/31/032
(MILLIONS)
% OF
OUTPUT
MEGAWATT
CAPACITY
COSTS3
(MILLIONS)

  Rock Island         
     Original units 2012 2029 $         121.750.0 414 $    41.9
     Additional units 2012 2029 331.575.0 
  Rocky Reach 2011 2006 394.738.9 505 29.6
  Wells 2018 2012 151.331.3 261 6.9
  Priest Rapids4 2005 2005 184.78.0 72 2.6
  Wanapum4 2009 2005 186.510.8 98 4.1

  Total     $        1,370.4  1,350 $    85.1

        The Company’s estimated payments for power purchases from the Columbia River are $84.6 million for 2004, $81.4 million for 2005, $78.4 million for 2006, $81.4 million for 2007, $82.6 million for 2008 and in the aggregate, $123.5 million thereafter through 2018.


        The Company also has numerous long-term firm purchased power contracts with other utilities in the region. The Company is generally not obligated to make payments under these contracts unless power is delivered. The Company’s estimated payments for firm power purchases from other utilities, excluding the Columbia River projects, are $76.0 million for 2004, $77.7 million for 2005, $78.6 million for 2006, $80.7 million for 2007, $82.6 million for 2008 and in the aggregate, $433.3 million thereafter through 2037. These contracts have varying terms and may include escalation and termination provisions.
        As required by the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), PSE entered into long-term firm purchased power contracts with non-utility generators. The Company purchases the net electrical output
        The following table summarizes the Company’s estimated obligations for future power purchases:


(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)200420052006200720082009 &
THERE-
AFTER
TOTAL

  Columbia River projects$    84.6$     81.4$     78.4$     81.4$     82.6$       123.5$     531.9
  Other utilities76.077.778.680.782.6433.3828.9
  Non-utility generators211.4217.3232.9211.9212.1746.01,831.6

      Total$   372.0$   376.4$   389.9$   374.0$   377.3$    1,302.8  $   3,192.4



   
TOTAL
BONDS
 
COMPANY'S ANNUAL AMOUNT
   OUTSTANDINGPURCHASABLE (APPROXIMATE)
 CONTRACT
LICENSE 1
12/31/042
% OFMEGAWATT
COST3
PROJECTEXP. DATEEXP. DATE(MILLIONS)OUTPUTCAPACITY(MILLIONS)
Rock Island      
Original units20122029$      115.850.0}
 
414
 
$     40.8
Additional units20122029328.475.0
Rocky Reach20112006383.038.950524.7
Wells20182012143.331.32615.2
Priest Rapids4
20052005179.78.0722.4
Wanapum4
20092005181.610.8983.3
Total  $   1,331.8 1,350$    76.4
_____________________
1
The Company is unable to predict whether the licenses under the Federal Power Act will be renewed to the current licensees.FERC has issued orders for the Rocky Reach, Wells and Priest Rapids/Wanapum projects under Section 22 of the Federal Power Act, which affirmthe Company'sCompany’s contractual rights to receive power under existing terms and conditions even if a new licensee is granted a license prior to expiration of the contract term.
2
The contracts for purchases initially were generally coextensive with the term of the PUD bonds associated with the project. Under the terms of some financings and refinancings, however, long-term bonds were sold to finance certain assets whose estimated useful lives extend beyond the expiration date of the power sales contracts. Of the total outstanding bonds sold for each project, the percentage of principal amount of bonds which mature beyond the contract expiration date are: 43.7%53.4% at Rock Island; 58.3%60.0% at Rocky Reach; 94.5%and 6.6% at Wells. There are no maturities beyond the contract expiration date of 2035 for Priest Rapids; 79.6% at Wanapum;Rapids and 6.2% at Wells.Wanapum which assumes a 40-year FERC license extension.
3
The components of 20032004 costs associated with the interest portion of debt service are:are: Rock Island, $22.6 million for all units; Rocky Reach, $9.4 million; Wells, $8.2$7.7 million; Priest Rapids, $0.8$0.7 million; and Wanapum, $0.6$1.0 million.
4
On December 28, 2001, PSE signed a contract offer for new contracts for the Priest Rapids and Wanapum Developments. On April 12, 2002, PSE signed amendments to those agreements which are technical clarifications of certain sections of the agreements. Under the terms of these contracts, PSE will continue to obtain capacity and energy for the term of any new FERC license to be obtained by Grant County PUD. Grant County PUD filed an "Application“Application for New License for the Priest Rapids Project"Project” on October 29, 2003. The new contract terms begin in November of 2005 for the Priest Rapids Development and in November of 2009 for the Wanapum Development. Unlike the current contracts, in the new contracts PSE'sPSE’s share of power from the developments declines over time as Grant County PUD'sPUD’s load increases. On March 8, 2002, the Yakama Nation filed a complaint with FERC which alleged that Grant County PUD'sPUD’s new contracts unreasonably restrain trade and violate various sections of the Federal Power Act and Public Law 83-544. On November 21, 2002, FERC dismissed the complaint while agreeing that certain aspects of the complaint had merit. As a result, it has ordered Grant County PUD to remove specific sections of the contract which constrain the parties to the Grant County PUD contracts from competing with Grant County PUD for a new license. A rehearing has been requested.

Early in 2003, the Colville Confederated Tribes (Colville Tribe) presented a claim to Douglas County PUD based upon allegedly unpaid past annual charges for the Wells Hydroelectric project for the use of Colville Tribal lands. The Colville Tribe also claimed that annual charges would also be due for periods into the future. On November 1, 2004, Douglas County PUD entered into a settlement with the Colville Tribe concerning claims that the Colville Tribe had asserted against Douglas County PUD for the use by the Wells project of Tribal lands. PSE approved the settlement and participated in the filing Douglas County PUD made on November 23, 2004 seeking FERC approval. The settlement was approved in a FERC order on February 11, 2005. It is unlikely that any party will seek a rehearing of that FERC order, of which the deadline for doing so is March 13, 2005. When the settlement becomes final, the effects on PSE will be through modestly increased power costs, and a small reduction to the amount of power delivered to PSE due to the allocation to the Colville Tribe. The Tribe’s allocation will be treated as an encroachment to the project, thus reducing the amount of power available for purchase by others.
The Company’s estimated payments for power purchases from the Columbia River are $79.9 million for 2005, $80.1 million for 2006, $83.2 million for 2007, $86.9 million for 2008, $89.7 million in 2009, and in the aggregate, $54.6 million thereafter through 2018.
The Company also has numerous long-term firm purchased power contracts with other utilities in the region. The Company is generally not obligated to make payments under these contracts unless power is delivered. The Company’s estimated payments for firm power purchases from other utilities, excluding the Columbia River projects, are $79.3 million for 2005, $81.5 million for 2006, $82.9 million for 2007, $83.7 million for 2008, $83.5 million in 2009 and in the aggregate, $349.6 million thereafter through 2037. These contracts have varying terms and may include escalation and termination provisions.
As required by the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), PSE entered into long-term firm purchased power contracts with non-utility generators. The Company purchases the net electrical output of four significant projects at fixed and annually escalating prices, which were intended to approximate the Company’s avoided cost of new generation projected at the time these agreements were made. The Company’s estimated payments under these contracts are $210.2 million for 2005, $215.4 million for 2006, $205.3 million for 2007, $205.3 million for 2008, and $207.1 million for 2009, and in the aggregate, $527.4 million thereafter through 2013.
The following table summarizes the Company’s estimated obligations for future power purchases:

 
 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
 
 
2005
 
 
 
2006
 
 
 
2007
 
 
 
2008
 
 
 
2009
 
2010 &
THERE-
AFTER
 
 
 
TOTAL
 
Columbia River Projects $79.9 $80.1 $83.2 $86.9 $89.7 $54.6 $474.4 
Other utilities  79.3  81.5  82.9  83.7  83.5  349.6  760.5 
Non-utility generators  210.2  215.4  205.3  205.3  207.1  527.4  1,570.7 
Total $369.4 $377.0 $371.4 $375.9 $380.3 $931.6 $2,805.6 

Total purchased power contracts provided the Company with approximately 9.4 million, 11.0 million 12.1 million and 11.912.1 million MWh of firm energy at a cost of approximately $404.7 million, $479.2 million $466.1 million and $496.3$466.1 million for the years 2004, 2003 and 2002, and 2001, respectively.
The following table indicates the Company’s percentage ownership and the extent of the Company’s investment in jointly owned generating plants in service at December 31, 2003:

COMPANY'S SHARE
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)ENERGY
SOURCE (FUEL)
COMPANY'S
OWNERSHIP
SHARE
PLANT IN SERVICE
AT COST
ACCUMULATED
DEPRECIATION

Colstrip 1 & 2   Coal   50% $     207  $     133 
Colstrip 3 & 4   Coal   25% 464  240 

2004:


   COMPANY'S SHARE
 
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
ENERGY SOURCE
(FUEL)
COMPANY'S
OWNERSHIP SHARE
PLANT IN SERVICE
AT COST
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
Colstrip Units 1 & 2Coal50%$ 207$ 134
Colstrip Units 3 & 4Coal25%469250

Financing for a participant’s ownership share in the projects is provided for by such participant. The Company’s share of related operating and maintenance expenses is included in corresponding accounts in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
        PSE and PPL Montana, the other owner of Colstrip Units 1 & 2, are engaged in a dispute with Western Energy Company, a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal Company, the supplier of coal to the Colstrip power plants. The dispute is in the binding arbitration process and concerns the price that PSE and PPL Montana will pay for coal under the contract for Colstrip Units 1 & 2 through the end of the contract in 2009. This arbitration is contemplated as a price adjustment mechanism in that contract. The present arbitration schedule would resolve the dispute in the second quarter of 2004. Any price adjustment could be retroactive to July 30, 2001 and would apply through the rest of the term. Fuel supply costs for electric generation after July 1, 2002 are part of PSE’s PCA mechanism.
        On October 13, 2003, PSE received a letter from Western Energy Company that enclosed an Audit Issue Letter dated July 25, 2003 from the Montana Department of Revenue, pertaining to some allegedly underpaid royalties on coal purchased by PSE from Western Energy Company between February 1997 and June 2000. PSE used the coal as fuel for its share of Units 3 & 4 of the Colstrip generating plant. PSE’s coal price for that period was reduced by a settlement PSE and Western Energy Company had entered into in 1997. Western Energy Company takes the position that PSE must reimburse Western Energy Company for any additional charges that result from the Audit Issue Letter. The Audit Issue Letter seeks payment of over $1.1 million for royalties for the federal government. If that position is correct, it could raise issues of other royalties and taxes that might apply. PSE will investigate and defend this claim vigorously. PSE cannot predict the outcome of this issue.
As part of its electric operations and in connection with the 1997 restructuring of the Tenaska Power Purchase Agreement, PSE is obligated to deliver to Tenaska up to 48,000 MMBtu per day of natural gas for operation of Tenaska’s natural gas-fired cogeneration facility. This obligation continues for the remaining term of the agreement, provided that no deliveries are required during the month of May. The price paid by Tenaska for this gas is reflective of the daily price of gas at the United States/Canada border near Sumas, Washington. PSE has entered into a financial arrangement to hedge a portion, 5,000 MMBtu to 10,000 MMBtu per day, of future gas supply costs associated with this obligation. The Company has a maximum financial obligation under this hedge agreement of $22.0$18.9 million in 2004.
2005 and $2.2 million in 2006.
As part of its electric operations and in connection with the 1999 buyout of the Cabot gas supply contract, PSE is obligated to deliver to Encogen up to 21,800 MMBtu per day of natural gas for operation of the Encogen natural gas-fired cogeneration facility. This obligation continues for the remaining term of the original Cabot agreement. The Company entered into a financial arrangement to hedge a portion of future gas supply


costs associated with this obligation, 10,000 MMBtu per day, for the remaining term of the agreement. The Company has a maximum financial obligation under this hedge agreement of $8.5 million in 2004, $8.7 million in 2005, $9.0 million in 2006, $9.2 million in 2007 and $9.6 million thereafter. Depending on actual market prices, these costs will be partially, or perhaps entirely, offset by floating price payments received under the hedge arrangement. Encogen has two gas supply agreements that comprise 40% of the plant’s requirements with remaining terms of 6.5ranging from less than 1 year to 3.5 years. The obligations under these contracts are $15.9 million in 2004, $16.7$14.1 million in 2005, $17.5$2.2 million in 2006, $18.4$2.5 million in 2007 and $12.9$1.4 million in the aggregate thereafter.

PSE enters into short-term energy supply contracts to meet its core customer needs. These contracts are generally classified as normal purchases and normal sales or in some cases recorded at fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 133.133 and SFAS No. 149. Commitments under these contracts are $3.0million in 2004, $10.3$138.2 million in 2005 $1.1 million in 2006, $0.4 million in 2007 and $0.1 million$41.2 thereafter.


GAS SUPPLY
The Company has also entered into various firm supply, transportation and storage service contracts in order to ensure adequate availability of gas supply for its firm customers. Many of these contracts, which have remaining terms from less than 1 year to 2019 years, provide that the Company must pay a fixed demand charge each month, regardless of actual usage. Two of PSE’s long-termThe Company contracts all its long term firm gas supply agreements, that expire November 2004, obligateservice, which means the Company to purchasehas a minimum annual quantity at market-based contract prices. If100% daily take obligation and the minimum volumes are not purchased and taken during the year, the Company is obligated to either: 1) paysupplier has a monthly or annual gas inventory charge calculated as a percentage of the then-current contract commodity price times the minimum quantity not taken; or 2) pay for gas not taken. PSE didn’t incur such charges in 2003.100% daily delivery obligation. The Company incurred demand charges in 20032004 for firm gas supply, firm transportation service and firm storage and peaking service of $24.7$21.4 million, $47.9$63.6 million and $5.3$5.7 million, respectively. WNG CapCAP I incurred demand charges in 20032004 for firm transportation service of $9.4 million.
$8.4 million which is included in the total Company demand charges.
The following table summarizes the Company’s obligations for future demand charges through the primary terms of its existing contracts. The quantified obligations are based on current contract prices and FERC authorized rates, which are subject to change.

DEMAND CHARGE OBLIGATIONS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
200420052006200720082009 &
THERE-
AFTER
TOTAL

  Firm gas supply$    18.7$     1.5$     1.0$     0.5$     0.5$       1.5$      23.7
  Firm transportation service66.658.857.057.048.0122.7410.1
  Firm storage service11.311.67.87.77.748.294.3

      Total$    96.6$    71.9$    65.8$    65.2$    56.2$    172.4$    528.1


DEMAND CHARGE OBLIGATIONS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
 
2005
 
 
2006
 
 
2007
 
 
2008
 
 
2009
2010 &
THERE-
AFTER
 
 
TOTAL
Firm gas supply$      1.8$     1.2$     1.0$     0.8$     0.5$       1.0$       6.3
Firm transportation service69.668.865.055.6110.2117.2486.4
Firm storage service11.510.57.77.77.740.285.3
Total$    82.9$   80.5$   73.7$   64.1$ 118.4$   158.4$   578.0

SERVICE CONTRACT
On August 30, 2001, PSE and Alliance Data Systems Corp. announced a contract under which Alliance Data will provide data processing and billing services for PSE. In providing services to PSE under the 10-year agreement, Alliance Data will use ConsumerLinX software, PSE’s customer-information software developed by its ConneXt subsidiary.a former subsidiary, ConneXt. Alliance Data acquired the assets of ConneXt, including the exclusive use of the ConsumerLinX software for five years with an option for renewal. Alliance Data will offer ConsumerLinX as part of its integrated, single-source customer relationship management solution for large-scale, regulated utility clients. The obligations under the contract are $21.7 million in 2004, $22.2 million in 2005, $22.8 million in 2006, $23.4 million in 2007, $24.0 million in 2008, $24.6 million in 2009 and $66.9$42.3 million in the aggregate thereafter.

In April 2004, PSE acquired a 49.85% interest in the Frederickson 1 generating facility. As part of that acquisition, PSE became subject to an existing long-term parts and service maintenance contract for the upkeep of the natural gas combined cycle unit. The contract was initiated in December 2000, and runs for the earlier of 96,000 factory fired hours or 18 years. The contract requires payments based on both a fixed and variable cost component, depending on how much the facility is used. PSE’s share of the estimated obligation under the contract based on projected future use of the facility are $1.1 million in 2005, $1.1 million in 2006, $5.1 million in 2007, $1.8 million in 2008, $1.1 million in 2009, and $12.2 million in the aggregate thereafter.

FREDONIA 3 AND 4 OPERATING LEASE
PSE leases two combustion turbines for its Fredonia 3 and 4 electric generating facility pursuant to a master operating lease that was amended for this purpose in April 2001. The lease has a term expiring in 2011, but can be canceled by PSE at any time. Payments under the lease vary with changes in the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). At December 31, 2004, PSE’s outstanding balance under the lease was $56.3 million. The expected residual value under the lease is the lesser of $37.4 million or 60% of the cost of the equipment. In the event the equipment is sold to a third party upon termination of the lease and the aggregate sales proceeds are less than the unamortized value of the equipment, PSE would be required to pay the lessor contingent rent in an amount equal to the deficiency up to a maximum of 87% of the unamortized value of the equipment.

SURETY BOND
The Company has a self-insurance surety bond in the amount offor $5.9 million guaranteeing compliance with the Industrial Insurance Act (workers’ compensation) and nine self-insurer’s pension bonds totaling $1.4$1.5 million.


ENVIRONMENTAL
The Company is subject to environmental laws and regulations by federal, state and local authorities and has been required to undertake certain environmental investigative and remedial efforts as a result of these laws and regulations. The Company has also been named by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and/or other third parties as potentially responsible at several contaminated sites and manufactured gas plant sites. PSE has implemented an ongoing program to test, replace and remediate certain underground storage tanks (UST) as required by federal and state laws. The UST replacement component of this effort is finished, but PSE continues its work remediating and/or monitoring these sites. Remediation and testing of Company vehicle service facilities and storage yards is also continuing.
During 1992, the Washington Commission issued orders regarding the treatment of costs incurred by the Company for certain sites under its environmental remediation program. The orders authorize the Company to accumulate and defer prudently incurred cleanup costs paid to third parties for recovery in rates established in future rate proceedings. The Company believes a significant portion of its past and future environmental remediation costs are recoverable from insurance companies, from third parties or under the Washington Commission’s order.
The information presented here as it relates to estimates of future liability is as of December 31, 2003.


2004.


ELECTRIC SITES
The Company has expended approximately $18.1$20.8 million related to the remediation activities covered by the Washington Commission’s order and has accrued approximately $1.6$1.7 million as a liability for future remediation costs for these and other remediation activities. To date, the Company has recovered approximately $18.8$20.0 million from insurance carriers.
Based on all known facts and analyses, the Company believes it is not likely that the identified environmental liabilities will result in a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, operating results or cash flow trends.

flow.


GAS SITES
The Company has expended approximately $65.9$69.6 million related to the remediation activities covered by a Washington Commission order and has accrued approximately $32.3$30.6 million for future remediation costs for these and other remediation sites. To date, the Company has recovered approximately $59.6$60.7 million from insurance carriers and other third parties. The Company expects to recover legal and remediation activities from either insurance companies or customers per Washington Commission orders.
Based on all known facts and analyses, the Company believes it is not likely that the identified environmental liabilities will result in a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, operating results or cash flow trends.

flow.


LITIGATION
There are several actions in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), in which the petitioners assert or may assert that BPA acted contrary to law or without authority in deciding to enter into, or in entering into or performing, a number of contracts, including the amended settlement agreement regarding the Residential Purchase and Sale Program and the conditional settlement agreements between BPA and PSE which modified the payment provisions of the Residential Purchase and Sale Program. BPA rates used in such amended settlement agreement between BPA and PSE for determining the amounts of money to be paid to PSE as residential exchange benefits during the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 have been confirmed, approved and allowed to go into effect by FERC. There are also several actions in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals against BPA, in which petitioners assert that BPA acted contrary to law in adopting or implementing the rates or rate adjustment clause upon which the benefits received or to be received from BPA during the October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 period are based. It is not clear what impact, if any, review of such rates may have on PSE.
Other contingencies, arising out of the normal course of the Company’s business, exist at December 31, 2003.2004. The ultimate resolution of these issues is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.



NOTE 19.
24.
Segment Information


Puget Energy operates in primarily two business segments: regulated utility operations or PSE,(PSE), which includes the account receivables securitization program, and construction services or InfrastruX.(InfrastruX). Puget Energy’s regulated utility operation generates, purchases and sells electricity and purchases, transports and sells natural gas. The service territory of PSE covers approximately 6,000 square miles in the State of Washington. InfrastruX specializes in construction services to other gas and electric utilities primarily in the south/Midwest, Texas, and the north-centralsouth-central and eastern United States.
One minor non-utility business segment awhich includes two PSE subsidiary, whichsubsidiaries, and Puget Energy, is described as other. The PSE subsidiaries are a real estate investment and development company is described as other. The assets of ConneXt, the development and marketing of customer information and billing system software segment, were sold during the third quarter of 2001. The third quarter results of 2001 included an $8.0 million after-tax gain related to the ConneXt sale.a holding company for a small non-utility wholesale generator. Reconciling items between segments are not significant.


        Financial data for

After completing a strategic review of InfrastruX, Puget Energy has decided to exit the utility construction services sector. Puget Energy’s Board of Directors approved the decision on February 8, 2005. The decision to exit the business segments are as follows:

  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
REGULATED  PUGET ENERGY
                                              2003UTILITY INFRASTRUXOTHER TOTAL 

  Revenues$2,143,693 $341,787 $  6,043 $2,491,523 
  Depreciation and amortization219,851 16,779 236 236,866 
  Income tax69,823 1,594 952 72,369 
  Operating income295,219 7,452 2,504 305,175 
  Interest charges, net of AFUDC179,437 5,485 123 185,045 
  Net income119,144 1,766 438 121,348 
  Goodwill, net-- 133,302 -- 133,302 
  Total assets5,257,157 342,332 75,196 5,674,685 
  Construction expenditures - excluding equity AFUDC269,973 -- -- 269,973 
  Additions to other property, plant and equipment-- 15,536 -- 15,536 


  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
REGULATED  PUGET ENERGY
                                              2002UTILITY INFRASTRUXOTHER TOTAL 

  Revenues$2,063,040 $319,529 $    9,753 $2,392,322 
  Depreciation and amortization215,097 13,426 220 228,743 
  Income tax50,600 6,703 1,957 59,260 
  Operating income289,511 15,595 4,563 309,669 
  Interest charges, net of AFUDC190,861 5,516 -- 196,377 
  Net income104,044 9,455 4,384 117,883 
  Goodwill, net-- 125,555 -- 125,555 
  Total assets5,323,129 319,248 129,756 5,772,133 
  Construction expenditures - excluding equity AFUDC224,165 -- -- 224,165 
  Additions to other property, plant and equipment-- 11,621 -- 11,621 


  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
REGULATED  PUGET ENERGY
                                              2001UTILITY INFRASTRUXOTHER TOTAL 

  Revenues$2,680,298 $173,786 $  32,476 $2,886,560 
  Depreciation and amortization208,705 8,820 15 217,540 
  Income tax68,005 2,956 8,877 79,838 
  Operating income273,751 8,702 14,668 297,121 
  Interest charges, net of AFUDC186,403 3,656 -- 190,059 
  Net income80,137 2,518 24,184 106,839 
  Goodwill, net-- 102,151 -- 102,151 
  Total assets5,300,105 229,125 139,251 5,668,481 
  Construction expenditures - excluding equity AFUDC247,435 -- -- 247,435 
  Additions to other property, plant and equipment-- 5,193 -- 5,193 


NOTE 20.is the result of the Company’s need to invest in the core utility business to acquire or construct energy generating resources and energy delivery infrastructure. During 2005, Puget Energy intends to monetize its interest in InfrastruX through sale or third party recapitalization and invest the proceeds in PSE.


 Supplementary Income Statement Information

 2003
2002
2001
  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)PUGET
ENERGY 
PSE PUGET
ENERGY 
PSE PUGET
ENERGY 
PSE 

  Taxes other than income taxes:
    Real estate and personal proper$  45,660 $  44,757 $  48,890 $  48,408 $  41,858 $  41,588 
    State business75,523 75,524 77,527 77,527 85,335 84,735 
    Municipal and occupational64,861 64,861 67,770 67,770 71,819 71,819 
    Other38,273 25,638 37,029 24,463 33,431 29,084 

  Total taxes other than income tax$224,317 $210,780 $231,216 $218,168 $232,443 $227,226 

  Charged to:
    Operating expense$208,395 $194,857 $215,429 $202,381 $212,582 $207,365 
    Other accounts, including
    construction work in progress15,922 15,923 15,787 15,787 19,861 19,861 

  Total taxes other than income tax$224,317 $210,780 $231,216 $218,168 $232,443 $227,226 

 
2004
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
REGULATED
UTILITY
 
 
INFRASTRUX
 
 
OTHER
 
RECONCILING
ITEM
PUGET
ENERGY
TOTAL
Revenues$ 2,192,340$ 369,936$ 6,537--$ 2,568,813
Depreciation and amortization228,31018,276256--246,842
Goodwill impairment--91,196----91,196
Income tax75,755(1,793)1,002--74,964
Operating income (loss)285,258(70,928)2,421--216,751
Interest charges, net of AFUDC166,4116,460219--173,090
Net income (loss)123,401(70,388)2,009--55,022
Goodwill, net--43,503----43,503
Total assets5,511,631251,09770,641--5,833,369
Construction expenditures - excluding equity AFUDC393,891------393,891
Additions to other property, plant and equipment--15,512----15,512

 
2003
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
REGULATED
UTILITY
 
 
INFRASTRUX
 
 
OTHER
RECONCILING
ITEM2
PUGET
ENERGY
TOTAL
Revenues1
$ 2,034,973$ 341,787$ 6,043--$ 2,382,803
Depreciation and amortization219,85116,779236--236,866
Income tax69,8231,594952--72,369
Operating income295,2197,4522,504--305,175
Interest charges, net of AFUDC179,4375,485123--185,045
Net income119,1441,766438(5,151)116,197
Goodwill, net--133,302----133,302
Total assets5,281,474342,33275,196--5,699,002
Construction expenditures - excluding equity AFUDC269,973------269,973
Additions to other property, plant and equipment--15,536----15,536

 
2002
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
REGULATED
UTILITY
 
 
INFRASTRUX
 
 
OTHER
 
RECONCILING
ITEM2
PUGET
ENERGY
TOTAL
Revenues1
$ 1,985,899$ 319,529$ 9,753--$ 2,315,181
Depreciation and amortization215,09713,426220--228,743
Income tax49,7336,7032,824--59,260
Operating income289,51115,5954,563--309,669
Interest charges, net of AFUDC190,8615,516----196,377
Net income104,0449,4554,384(7,831)110,052
Goodwill, net--125,555----125,555
Total assets5,323,129319,248129,756--5,772,133
Construction expenditures - excluding equity AFUDC224,165------224,165
Additions to other property, plant and equipment--11,621----11,621
_____________________
1  
Revenues for the Regulated Utility segment were reduced $108.7 million and $77.1 million in 2003 and 2002, respectively as a result of a reclassification from implementing EITF No. 03-11 on January 1, 2004. The reclassification had no effect on financial position or results of operations.
2  
Reconciling item is preferred stock dividend accrual at PSE that is treated as an other deduction at Puget Energy.


SUPPLEMENTALQUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA


The following unaudited amounts, in the opinion of the Company, include all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of the results of operations for the interim periods. Quarterly amounts vary during the year due to the seasonal nature of the utility business.

PUGET ENERGY

  (Unaudited; dollars in thousands except per share amounts)    
  2003 QUARTERFIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 

Operating revenues$   675,961 $557,856 $515,567 $ 742,139 
Operating income91,385 66,407 54,389 92,994 
Other income704 2,247 2,663 (4,050)
Net income before cumulative effect of
  accounting change44,756 22,392 11,003 43,366 
Net income44,587 22,392 11,003 43,366 
Basic earnings per common share$0.46 $0.22 $0.10 $0.44 
Diluted earnings per common share$0.45 $0.22 $0.10 $0.44 
 

  (Unaudited; dollars in thousands except per share amounts)
  2002 QUARTERFIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 

Operating revenues$   739,060 $540,819 $458,476 $ 653,967 
Operating income76,571 76,833 57,098 99,168 
Other income384 3,441 230 1,403 
Net income26,478 31,369 8,512 51,525 
Basic and diluted earnings per common share$0.28 $0.34 $0.07 $0.55 
 

  (Unaudited; dollars in thousands except per share amounts)
  2001 QUARTERFIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 

Operating revenues$1,024,234 $710,295 $478,966 $ 673,064 
Operating income130,541 66,071 45,756 54,754 
Other income1,941 1,568 7,892 3,123 
Net income before cumulative effect of
  accounting change87,047 19,465 6,809 8,266 
Net income72,298 19,465 6,809 8,266 
Basic earnings per common share$0.815 $0.201 $0.055 $0.071 
Diluted earnings per common share$0.812 $0.201 $0.054 $0.071 


PUGET SOUND ENERGY

  (Unaudited; dollars in thousands)
  2003 QUARTERFIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 

Operating revenues$   605,284 $465,513 $422,425 $ 656,514 
Operating income93,935 62,120 51,046 90,803 
Other income691 2,309 2,620 (4,033)
Net income before cumulative effect of
  accounting change48,270 19,614 9,488 42,683 
Net income48,101 19,614 9,488 42,683 
 

  (Unaudited; dollars in thousands)
  2002 QUARTERFIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 

Operating revenues$   678,299 $464,697 $366,103 $ 563,694 
Operating income74,732 72,724 51,367 95,769 
Other income309 3,455 210 1,241 
Net income25,698 28,839 4,701 49,709 
 

  (Unaudited; dollars in thousands)
  2001 QUARTERFIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 

Operating revenues$   995,694 $664,827 $426,195 $ 628,058 
Operating income130,111 61,629 42,360 54,383 
Other income2,843 2,485 8,885 2,839 
Net income before cumulative effect of
  accounting change87,628 17,275 5,474 8,754 
Net income72,879 17,275 5,474 8,754 

        PUGET ENERGY
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands except per share amounts)       
2004 QUARTER FIRST 
SECOND1
 THIRD 
FOURTH2
 
Operating revenues $743,470 $515,939 $514,951 $794,452 
Operating income  109,680  35,216  53,825  18,031 
Other income  64  1,586  318  2,324 
Net income (loss)  66,365  (6,780) 11,124  (15,687)
Basic earnings per common share $0.67 $(0.07)$0.11 $(0.16)
Diluted earnings per common share $0.67 $(0.07)$0.11 $(0.16)
        
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands except per share amounts)       
2003 QUARTER FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 
Operating revenues3
 
$
640,637
 
$
524,060
 
$
490,258
 
$
727,849
 
Operating income  91,385  66,407  54,389  92,994 
Other income  704  2,247  2,663  (4,050)
Net income before cumulative effect of accounting change  42,889  20,598  9,885  42,993 
Net income  42,720  20,598  9,885  42,993 
Basic earnings per common share 
$
0.46
 
$
0.22
 
$
0.10
 
$
0.44
 
Diluted earnings per common share 
$
0.45
 
$
0.22
 
$
0.10
 
$
0.44
 
        
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands except per share amounts)       
2002 QUARTER FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 
Operating revenues3
 $720,997 $529,803 $442,577 $621,804 
Operating income  76,571  76,833  57,098  99,168 
Other income  384  3,441  230  1,403 
Net income  24,466  29,429  6,572  49,585 
Basic and diluted earnings per common share $0.28 $0.34 $0.07 $0.55 
_____________________
1  
The second quarter 2004 includes a disallowance of $36.5 million or $23.7 million after-tax related to a Washington Commission order stating PSE did not prudently manage gas costs for the Tenaska generating facility.
2  
The fourth quarter 2004 includes a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $91.2 million or $76.6 million after-tax and minority interest related to goodwill at InfrastruX.
3  
Operating revenues in 2003 and 2002 were revised as a result of a reclassification due to Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gaines and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03,” which became effective on January 1, 2004. First, second, third and fourth quarter 2003 revenues were reduced by $35.3 million, $33.8 million, $25.3 million and $14.3 million, respectively. First, second, third and fourth quarter 2002 revenues were reduced by $18.1 million, $11.0 million, $15.9 million and $32.1 million, respectively. The impact of EITF No. 03-11 had no effect on financial position or results of operations.



        Puget Sound Energy
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands)         
2004 QUARTER FIRST 
SECOND1
 THIRD FOURTH 
Operating revenues $668,714 $423,123 $415,026 $692,012 
Operating income  108,845  30,704  50,363  98,330 
Other income  68  1,570  356  2,368 
Net income (loss)  66,898  (9,540) 9,647  59,187 
          
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands)         
2003 QUARTER 
FIRST
 SECOND THIRD FOURTH 
Operating revenues2
 $569,960 $431,717 $397,116 $642,224 
Operating income  93,935  62,120  51,046  90,803 
Other income  691  2,309  2,620  (4,033)
Net income before cumulative effect of accounting change  48,270  19,614  9,488  42,683 
Net income  48,101  19,614  9,488  42,683 
          
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands)         
2002 QUARTER FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH 
Operatingrevenues2
 $660,236 $453,681 $350,204 $531,531 
Operating income  74,732  72,724  51,367  95,769 
Other income  309  3,455  210  1,241 
Net income  25,698  28,839  4,701  49,709 
_____________________
1  
The second quarter 2004 includes a disallowance of $36.5 million or $23.7 million after-tax related to a Washington Commission order stating PSE did not prudently manage gas costs for the Tenaska generating facility.
2  
Operating revenues in 2003 and 2002 were revised as a result of a reclassification due to Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-11, “Reporting Realized Gaines and Losses on Derivative Instruments That Are Subject to FASB No. 133 and Not ‘Held for Trading Purposes’ as Defined in Issue No. 02-03,” which became effective on January 1, 2004. First, second, third and fourth quarter 2003 revenues were reduced by $35.3 million, $33.8 million, $25.3 million and $14.3 million, respectively. First, second, third and fourth quarter 2002 revenues were reduced by $18.1 million, $11.0 million, $15.9 million and $32.1 million, respectively. The impact of EITF No. 03-11 had no effect on financial position or results of operations.



Valuation and Qualifying Accounts and Reserves

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
BALANCE AT
BEGINNING
OF PERIOD

ADDITIONS
CHARGED TO
COSTS AND
EXPENSES

DEDUCTIONS
BALANCE
AT END
OF PERIOD

  PUGET ENERGY          

  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001  

 
  Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:    
   Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable  $3,863 $9,387 $8,891 $4,359 
   Reserve on wholesale sales   41,488  --  --  41,488 
   Industrial accident reserve   2,000  --  2,000  -- 
   Gas transportation contracts reserve   139  --  139  -- 

   
  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002  

 
  Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:    
   Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable  $5,488 $11,191 $12,816 $3,863 
   Reserve on wholesale sales   41,488 ��--  --  41,488 
   Industrial accident reserve   --  4,000  2,000  2,000 
   Gas transportation contracts reserve   139  --  --  139 

   
  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001  

 
  Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:    
   Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable  $1,538 $13,458 $9,508 $5,488 
   Reserve on wholesale sales   41,488  --  --  41,488 
   Gas transportation contracts reserve   1,657  32  1,550  139 

  PUGET SOUND ENERGY  

  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003  

 
  Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:    
   Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable  $1,990 $9,385 $8,891 $2,484 
   Reserve on wholesale sales   41,488  --  --  41,488 
   Industrial accident reserve   2,000  --  2,000  -- 
   Gas transportation contracts reserve   139  --  139  -- 

   
  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002  

 
  Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:    
   Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable  $3,666 $11,140 $12,816 $1,990 
   Reserve on wholesale sales   41,488  --  --  41,488 
   Industrial accident reserve   --  4,000  2,000  2,000 
   Gas transportation contracts reserve   139  --  --  139 

   
  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001  

 
  Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:    
   Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable  $1,538 $11,636 $9,508 $3,666 
   Reserve on wholesale sales   41,488  --  --  41,488 
   Gas transportation contracts reserve   1,657  32  1,550  139 


 
 
PUGET ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
BALANCE AT
BEGINNING OF
PERIOD
 
ADDITIONS
CHARGED TO
COSTS AND
EXPENSES
 
 
 
 
DEDUCTIONS
 
 
BALANCE
AT END
OF PERIOD
 
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004         
Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:             
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable $4,359 $7,668 $7,507 $4,520 
Reserve on wholesale sales  41,488  --  --  41,488 
Deferred tax asset valuation allowance  --  17,988  --  17,988 
Tenaska disallowance reserve  --  36,490  33,334  3,156 
          
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003         
Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:             
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable $3,863 $9,387 $8,891 $4,359 
Reserve on wholesale sales  41,488  --  --  41,488 
Industrial accident reserve  2,000  --  2,000  -- 
Gas transportation contracts reserve  139  --  139  -- 
          
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002         
Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:             
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable $5,488 $11,191 $12,816 $3,863 
Reserve on wholesale sales  41,488  --  --  41,488 
Industrial accident reserve  --  4,000  2,000  2,000 
Gas transportation contracts reserve  139  --  --  139 

 
 
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
 
BALANCE AT
BEGINNING OF
PERIOD
 
ADDITIONS
CHARGED TO
COSTS AND
EXPENSES
 
 
 
 
DEDUCTIONS
 
 
BALANCE
AT END
OF PERIOD
 
Year Ended December 31, 2004         
Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:         
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable $2,484 $7,343 $7,157 $2,670 
Reserve on wholesale sales  41,488  --  --  41,488 
Tenaska disallowance reserve  --  36,490  33,334  3,156 
          
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003         
Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:             
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable $1,990 $9,385 $8,891 $2,484 
Reserve on wholesale sales  41,488  --  --  41,488 
Industrial accident reserve  2,000  --  2,000  -- 
Gas transportation contracts reserve  139  --  139  -- 
          
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002         
Accounts deducted from assets on balance sheet:             
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable $3,666 $11,140 $12,816 $1,990 
Reserve on wholesale sales  41,488  --  --  41,488 
Industrial accident reserve  --  4,000  2,000  2,000 
Gas transportation contracts reserve  139  --  --  139 



CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None.


CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES


PUGET ENERGY
EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Under the supervision and with the participation of Puget Energy’s management, including the President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy has evaluated the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) as of December 31, 2004, the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, the President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial officer of Puget Energy concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
There have been no changes in Puget Energy’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2004 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, Puget Energy’s internal control over financial reporting.

MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Puget Energy’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Under the supervision and with the participation of Puget Energy’s President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Energy’s management assessed the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organization of the Treadway Commission. Based on the assessment, Puget Energy’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2004.
Puget Energy’s management assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included herein.

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Under the supervision and with the participation of PSE’s management, including the President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer, PSE has evaluated the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) as of December 31, 2004, the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, the President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial officer of PSE concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
There have been no changes in PSE’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2004, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, PSE’s internal control over financial reporting.



MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
PSE’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Under the supervision and with the participation of PSE’s President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Puget Sound Energy’s management assessed the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organization of the Treadway Commission. Based on the assessment, PSE’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2004.
PSE’s management assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included herein.


ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION


None.





PUGET ENERGY
The information required by this item with respect to Puget Energy is incorporated herein by reference to the material under “Available Information” in Part I of this report and “Proposal 1 - Election of Directors,” “Directors Continuing in Office,” “Other Director Information,” “Board of Directors and Corporate Governance” and “Security Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers--Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in Puget Energy’s proxy statement for its 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (Commission file No. 1-16305). Reference is also made to the information regarding Puget Energy’s executive officers set forth in Part I of this report.

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
The information called for by Item 10 with respect to PSE is omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (omission of information by certain wholly owned subsidiaries).



PUGET ENERGY
The information required by this item with respect to Puget Energy is incorporated herein by reference to the material under “Director Compensation,” “Executive Compensation” and “Employment Contracts, Termination of Employment and Change-In-Control Arrangements” in Puget Energy’s proxy statement for its 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (Commission File No. 1-16305).

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
The information called for by Item 11 with respect to PSE is omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(c) to Form 10-K (omission of information by certain wholly owned subsidiaries).
ITEM 12.  SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

PUGET ENERGY
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
The information required by this item with respect to Puget Energy is incorporated herein by reference to the material under “Equity Compensation Plan Information” in Puget Energy’s proxy statement for its 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (Commission File No. 1-16305).

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP 
The information required by this item with respect to Puget Energy is incorporated herein by reference to the material under “Security Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers” in Puget Energy’s proxy statement for its 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (Commission File No. 1-16305).

PUGET SOUND ENERGY
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
The information called for by this item with respect to PSE is omitted pursuant to General Instruction I(2)(e) to Form 10-K (omission of information by wholly owned subsidiaries).

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
As of December 31, 2004, all of the issued and outstanding shares of PSE’s common stock were held beneficially and of record by Puget Energy.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

None.


PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

The aggregate fees billed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, for the year ended December 31 were as follows:

  2004 2003 
 
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
PUGET
ENERGY
 
 
PSE
 
PUGET
ENERGY
 
 
PSE
 
Audit fees1
 $2,084 $1,695 $850 $453 
Audit related fees2
  82  82  261  147 
Tax fees3
  59  55  200  168 
Total $2,225 $1,832 $1,311 $768 
_____________________
1  
For professional services rendered for the audit of Puget Energy’s and PSE’s annual financial statements, reviews of financial statements included in the Companies’ Forms 10-Q, and consents and reviews of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 2004 fees are estimated and include an aggregate amount of $1,251,000 and $1,156,000 billed to Puget Energy and PSE, respectively through December 31, 2004. The 2003 fees include an aggregate amount of approximately $444,000 and $277,000 billed to Puget Energy and PSE, respectively, through December 31, 2003. In 2004, audit fees included $1,284,000 and $1,120,000 for professional services rendered for the audits of Puget Energy’s and PSE’s assessment of, and the effectiveness of, internal controls over financial reporting (Sarbanes-Oxley 404).
2  
Consists of employee benefit plan audits, due diligence reviews and assistance with Sarbanes-Oxley readiness.
3  
Consists of tax planning, consulting and tax return reviews.

The Audit Committees of the Company have adopted policies for the pre-approval of all audit and non-audit services provided by the Company’s independent auditor. The policies are designed to ensure that the provision of these services does not impair the auditor’s independence. Under the policies, unless a type of service to be provided by the independent auditor has received general pre-approval, it will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee. In addition, any proposed services exceeding pre-approved cost levels will require specific pre-approval by the Audit Committee.
The annual audit services engagement terms and fees, as well as any changes in terms, conditions and fees relating to the engagement, are subject to specific pre-approval by the Audit Committees. In addition, on an annual basis, the Audit Committees grant general pre-approval for specific categories of audit, audit-related, tax and other services, within specified fee levels, that may be provided by the independent auditor. With respect to each proposed pre-approved service, the independent auditor is required to provide detailed back-up documentation to the Audit Committees regarding the specific services to be provided. Under the policies, the Audit Committees may delegate pre-approval authority to one or more of their members. The member or members to whom such authority is delegated shall report any responsibilities to pre-approve services performed by the independent auditor to management.
For 2004 all audit and non-audit services were pre-approved.




EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

a)  Documents filed as part of this report:
1)  
Financial Statements. See index on page 66.
2)  
Financial Statement Schedules. Financial Statement Schedules of the Company located on page 123, as required for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, consist of the following:

II.  Valuation of Qualifying Accounts

3)  Exhibits - see index on page 129.



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


PUGET ENERGY, INC.
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
/s/ Stephen P. Reynolds/s/ Stephen P. Reynolds
Stephen P. ReynoldsStephen P. Reynolds
President and Chief Executive OfficerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 1, 2005Date: March 1, 2005


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of each registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


SIGNATURETITLEDATE
(Puget Energy and PSE unless otherwise noted)
/s/ Douglas P. BeighleChairman of the BoardMarch 1, 2005
(Douglas P. Beighle)
/s/ Stephen P. ReynoldsPresident, Chief Executive Officer and
(Stephen P. Reynolds)Director
/s/ Bertrand A. ValdmanSenior Vice President Finance and
(Bertrand A. Valdman)Chief Financial Officer
/s/ James W. EldredgeCorporate Secretary and Chief
(James W. Eldredge)Accounting Officer
/s/ William S. AyerDirector
(William S. Ayer)
/s/ Charles W. BinghamDirector
(Charles W. Bingham)
/s/ Phyllis J. CampbellDirector
(Phyllis J. Campbell)
/s/ Craig W. ColeDirector
(Craig W. Cole)
   /s/ Robert L. DrydenDirector
(Robert L. Dryden)
/s/ Stephen E. FrankDirector
(Stephen E. Frank)
/s/ Tomio MoriguchiDirector
(Tomio Moriguchi)
/s/ Dr. Kenneth P. MortimerDirector
(Dr. Kenneth P. Mortimer)
/s/ Sally G. NarodickDirector
(Sally G. Narodick)




Certain of the following exhibits are filed herewith. Certain other of the following exhibits have heretofore been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are incorporated herein by reference.




 3(i).1Restated Articles of Incorporation of Puget Energy (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2, Puget Energy'sEnergy’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 2, 2001, Commission File No. 333-77491).
 3(i).2Restated Articles of Incorporation of PSE (included as Annex F to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed February 1, 1996, Registration No. 333-617).
 3(ii).1Amended and Restated Bylaws of Puget Energy dated March 7, 2003.2003 (Exhibit 3(ii).1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
 3(ii).2Amended and Restated Bylaws of PSE dated March 7, 2003.2003 (Exhibit 3(ii).2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
 4.1Fortieth through Seventy-ninth Supplemental Indentures defining the rights of the holders of PSE'sPSE’s First Mortgage Bonds (Exhibit 2-d to Registration No. 2-60200; Exhibit 4-c to Registration No. 2-13347; Exhibits 2-e through and including 2-k to Registration No. 2-60200; Exhibit 4-h to Registration No. 2-17465; Exhibits 2-l, 2-m and 2-n to Registration No. 2-60200; Exhibits 2-m to Registration No. 2-37645; Exhibit 2-o through and including 2-s to Registration No. 2-60200; Exhibit 5-b to Registration No. 2-62883; Exhibit 2-h to Registration No. 2-65831; Exhibit (4)-j-1 to Registration No. 2-72061; Exhibit (4)-a to Registration No. 2-91516; Exhibit (4)-b to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393; Exhibits (4)-b and (4)-c to Registration No. 33-45916; Exhibit (4)-c to Registration No. 33-50788; Exhibit (4)-a to Registration No. 33-53056; Exhibit 4.3 to Registration No. 33-63278; Exhibit 4.25 to Registration No. 333-41181; Exhibit 4.27 to Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 5, 1999; Exhibit 4.2 to Current Report on form 8-K dated November 2, 2000; and Exhibit 4.2 to Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 3, 2003.2003).
 4.2Indenture defining the rights of the holders of PSE'sPSE’s senior notes (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4-a to PSE'sPSE’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1998, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.3First Supplemental Indenture defining the rights of the holders of PSE's Senior Notes,PSE’s senior notes, Series A (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4-b to PSE'sPSE’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1998, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.4Second Supplemental Indenture defining the rights of the holders of PSE's Senior Notes,PSE’s senior notes, Series B (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.6 to PSE'sPSE’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated March 5, 1999, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.5Third Supplemental Indenture defining the rights of the holders of PSE's Senior Notes,PSE’s senior notes, Series C (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to PSE'sPSE’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated November 2, 2000, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.6Fourth Supplemental Indenture defining the rights of the holders of PSE's Senior NotesPSE’s senior notes (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to PSE'sPSE’s Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 3, 2003, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.7Rights Agreement dated as of December 21, 2000 between Puget Energy and Mellon Investor Services LLC, as Rights Agent (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to PSE'sPSE’s Registration Statement on Form 8-A, dated January 2, 2001, Commission File No. 1-16305).
 4.8Indenture between PSE and the First National Bank of Chicago dated June 6, 1997 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of PSE'sPSE’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.9Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust between Puget Sound Energy Capital Trust and the First National Bank of Chicago dated June 6, 1997 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of PSE'sPSE’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.10Series A Capital Securities Guarantee Agreement between PSE and the First National Bank of Chicago dated June 6, 1997 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 of PSE'sPSE’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.11First Supplemental Indenture dated as of October 1, 1959 (Exhibit 4-D to Registration No. 2-17876).
 4.12Sixth Supplemental Indenture dated as of August 1, 1966 (Exhibit to Form 8-K for month of August 1966, File No. 0-951).
 4.13Seventh Supplemental Indenture dated as of February 1, 1967 (Exhibit 4-M, Registration No. 2-27038).
 4.14Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 1, 1977 (Exhibit 6-05 to Registration No. 2-60352).
 4.15Seventeenth Supplemental Indenture dated as of August 9, 1978 (Exhibit 5-K.18 to Registration No. 2-64428).
 4.16Twenty-second Supplemental Indenture dated as of July 15, 1986 (Exhibit 4-B.20 to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1986, File No. 0-951).
 4.17Twenty-seventh Supplemental Indenture dated as of September 1, 1990 (Exhibit 4-B.20, Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1998, File No. 10-951).
 4.18Twenty-eighth Supplemental Indenture dated as of July 31, 1991 (Exhibit 4-A, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1993, File No. 0-951).
 4.19Twenty-ninth Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 1, 1993 (Exhibit 4-A to Registration No. 33-49599).
 4.20Thirtieth Supplemental Indenture dated as of August 15, 1995 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4-A of Washington Natural Gas Company'sCompany’s S-3 Registration Statement, Registration No. 33-61859).
 4.21Thirty-first Supplemental Indenture dated February 10, 1997.1997 (Exhibit 4.30 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-6305 and 1-4393).
 4.22Unsecured Debt Indenture between Puget Sound Energy and Bank One Trust Company, N.A. dated as of May 18, 2001, defining the rights of the holders of Puget Sound Energy'sEnergy’s unsecured debentures (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to Puget Sound Energy'sEnergy’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed May 22, 2001, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.23First Supplemental Indenture to the Unsecured Debt Indenture dated as of May 18, 2001 defining the rights of 8.40% Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debentures due June 30, 2041 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.4 to Puget Sound Energy'sEnergy’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed May 22, 2001, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.24Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust of Puget Sound Energy Trust II dated as of May 18, 2001 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Puget Sound Energy'sEnergy’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed May 22, 2001, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.25Preferred Securities Guarantee Agreement, dated May 18, 2001 between Puget Sound Energy and Bank One Trust Company, N.A. for the benefit of the holders of the trust preferred securities of the Puget Sound Energy Trust II (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.5 to Puget Sound Energy'sEnergy’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed May 22, 2001, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 4.26Pledge Agreement dated March 11, 2003 between Puget Sound Energy and Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, National Association, as Trustee (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.24 to the Company'sCompany’s Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated July 11, 2003, Commission File No. 333-82940-02).
 4.27Loan Agreement dated as of March 1, 2003, between the City of Forsyth, Rosebud County, Montana and Puget Sound Energy (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.25 to the Company'sCompany’s Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-3, dated July 11, 2003, Commission File No. 333-82490-02).
*4.28Eightieth Supplemental Indenture dated as of April 30, 2004 defining the rights of the holders of PSE’s First Mortgage Bonds.
 10.1First Amendment dated as of October 4, 1961 to Power Sales Contract between Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Rocky Reach Project (Exhibit 13-d to Registration No. 2-24252).
 10.2First Amendment dated February 9, 1965 to Power Sales Contract between Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Wells Development (Exhibit 13-p to Registration No. 2-24252).
 10.3Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement executed as of September 15, 1964 among the United States of America, PSE and most of the other major electrical utilities in the Pacific Northwest (Exhibit 13-gg to Registration No. 2-24252).
10.4Contract dated November 14, 1957 between Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Rocky Reach Project (Exhibit 4-1-a to Registration No. 2-13979).
 10.5 10.4Power Sales Contract dated as of November 14, 1957 between Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Rocky Reach Project (Exhibit 4-c-1 to Registration No. 2-13979).
 10.6 10.5Power Sales Contract dated May 21, 1956 between Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Priest Rapids Project (Exhibit 4-d to Registration No. 2-13347).
 10.7 10.6First Amendment to Power Sales Contract dated as of August 5, 1958 between PSE and Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington, relating to the Priest Rapids Development (Exhibit 13-h to Registration No. 2-15618).
 10.8 10.7Power Sales Contract dated June 22, 1959 between Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Wanapum Development (Exhibit 13-j to Registration No. 2-15618).
 10.9 10.8Agreement to Amend Power Sales Contracts dated July 30, 1963 between Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Wanapum Development (Exhibit 13-1 to Registration No. 2-21824).
 10.10 10.9Power Sales Contract executed as of September 18, 1963 between Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington and PSE, relating to the Wells Development (Exhibit 13-r to Registration No. 2-21824).
 10.11 10.10Construction and Ownership Agreement dated as of July 30, 1971 between The Montana Power Company and PSE (Exhibit 5-b to Registration No. 2-45702).
 10.12 10.11Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated as of July 30, 1971 between The Montana Power Company and PSE (Exhibit 5-c to Registration No. 2-45702).
 10.13Coal Supply Agreement dated as of July 30, 1971 among Northwestern Resources formerly The Montana Power Company, PSE and Western Energy Company (Exhibit 5-d to Registration No. 2-45702).
10.14 10.12Contract dated June 19, 1974 between PSE and P.U.D. No. 1 of Chelan County (Exhibit D to Form 8-K dated July 5, 1974).
 10.15Loan Agreement dated as of December 1, 1980 and related documents pertaining to Whitehorn turbine construction trust financing (Exhibit 10.52 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1980, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.16Coal Transportation Agreement dated as of July 10, 1981 (Exhibit 20-a to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1981, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.17Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue executed by the United States Department of Energy acting by and through the Bonneville Power Administration and PSE dated September 17, 1985 (Exhibit (10)-49 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.18Agreement to Dismiss Claims and Covenant Not to Sue dated September 17, 1985 between Washington Public Power Supply System (Energy Northwest) and PSE (Exhibit (10)-50 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.19Irrevocable Offer of Washington Public Power Supply System (Energy Northwest) Nuclear Project No. 3 Capability for Acquisition executed by PSE dated September 17, 1985 (Exhibit A of Exhibit (10)-50 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.20Settlement Exchange Agreement (Bonneville Exchange Power Contract) executed by the United States of America Department of Energy acting by and through the Bonneville Power Administration and PSE dated September 17, 1985 (Exhibit B of Exhibit (10)-50 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.21Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue between PSE and Northern Wasco County People's Utility District dated October 16, 1985 (Exhibit (10)-53 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.22Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue between PSE and Tillamook People's Utility District dated October 16, 1985 (Exhibit (10)-54 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.23Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue between PSE and Clatskanie People's Utility District dated September 30, 1985 (Exhibit (10)-55 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1985, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.24Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between PSE and Muckleshoot Tribe of the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, dated October 31, 1986 (Exhibit (10)-55 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1986, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.25 10.13Transmission Agreement dated April 17, 1981 between the Bonneville Power Administration and PSE (Colstrip Project) (Exhibit (10)-55 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.26 10.14Transmission Agreement dated April 17, 1981 between the Bonneville Power Administration and Montana Intertie Users (Colstrip Project) (Exhibit (10)-56 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.27 10.15Ownership and Operation Agreement dated as of May 6, 1981 between PSE and other Owners of the Colstrip Project (Colstrip 3 and 4) (Exhibit (10)-57 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.28 10.16Colstrip Project Transmission Agreement dated as of May 6, 1981 between PSE and Owners of the Colstrip Project (Exhibit (10)-58 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.29 10.17Common Facilities Agreement dated as of May 6, 1981 between PSE and Owners of Colstrip 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 (Exhibit (10)-59 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.30Agreement for the Purchase of Power dated as of October 29, 1984 between South Fork II, Inc. and PSE (Weeks Falls Hydro-electric Project) (Exhibit (10)-60 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.31Agreement for the Purchase of Power dated as of October 29, 1984, between South Fork Resources, Inc. and PSE (Twin Falls Hydro-electric Project) (Exhibit (10)-61 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.32Agreement for Firm Purchase Power dated as of January 4, 1988 between the City of Spokane, Washington and PSE (Spokane Waste Combustion Project) (Exhibit (10)-62 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.33Agreement for Evaluating, Planning and Licensing dated as of February 21, 1985 and Agreement for Purchase of Power dated as of February 21, 1985 between Pacific Hydropower Associates and PSE (Koma Kulshan Hydro-electric Project) (Exhibit (10)-63 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.34 10.18Amendment dated as of June 1, 1968, to Power Sales Contract between Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington and PSE (Rocky Reach Project) (Exhibit (10)-66 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.35 10.19Transmission Agreement dated as of December 30, 1987 between the Bonneville Power Administration and PSE (Rock Island Project) (Exhibit (10)-74 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1988, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.36Amendment dated as of August 10, 1988 to Agreement for Firm Purchase Power dated as of January 4, 1988 between the City of Spokane, Washington and PSE (Spokane Waste Combustion Project) (Exhibit (10)-76 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1988, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.37Agreement for Firm Power Purchase dated October 24, 1988 between Northern Wasco People's Utility District and PSE (The Dalles Dam North Fishway) (Exhibit (10)-77 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1988, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.38Agreement for Firm Power Purchase dated as of February 24, 1989 between Sumas Energy, Inc. and PSE (Exhibit (10)-1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1989, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.39Settlement Agreement dated as of April 27, 1989 between Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington, Portland General Electric Company (Enron), PacifiCorp, The Washington Water Power Company (Avista) and PSE (Exhibit (10)-1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1989, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.40Agreement for Firm Power Purchase (Thermal Project) dated as of June 29, 1989 between San Juan Energy Company and PSE (Exhibit (10)-2 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1989, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.41Agreement for Verification of Transfer, Assignment and Assumption dated as of September 15, 1989 between San Juan Energy Company, March Point Cogeneration Company and PSE (Exhibit (10)-3 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1989, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.42 10.20Power Sales Agreement between Northwestern Resources formerly(formerly The Montana Power CompanyCompany) and PSE dated as of October 1, 1989 (Exhibit (10)-4 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1989, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.43Conservation Power Sales Agreement dated as of December 11, 1989 between Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County and PSE (Exhibit (10)-87 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1989, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.44 10.21Amendment No. 1 to the Colstrip Project Transmission Agreement dated as of February 14, 1990 among The Montana Power Company, The Washington Water Power Company (Avista), Portland General Electric Company (Enron), PacifiCorp and PSE (Exhibit (10)-91 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1990, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.45Settlement Agreement dated as of October 1, 1990 among Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington, PSE, Pacific Power and Light Company (PacifiCorp), The Washington Water Power Company (Avista), Portland General Electric Company (Enron), the Washington Department of Fisheries, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Exhibit (10)-95 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1990, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.46 10.22Agreement for Firm Power Purchase (Thermal Project) dated December 27, 1990 among March Point Cogeneration Company, a California general partnership comprising San Juan Energy Company, a California corporation; Texas-Anacortes Cogeneration Company, a Delaware corporation; and PSE (Exhibit (10)-4 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.47 10.23Agreement for Firm Power Purchase dated March 20, 1991 between Tenaska Washington, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and PSE (Exhibit (10)-1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.48Amendatory Agreement No. 3 dated August 1, 1991 to the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement executed September 15, 1964 among the United States of America, PSE and most of the other major electrical utilities in the Pacific Northwest (Exhibit (10)-4 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.49Agreement between the 40 parties to the Western Systems Power Pool (PSE being one party) dated July 27, 1991 (Exhibit (10)-2 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.50Memorandum of Understanding between PSE and the Bonneville Power Administration dated September 18, 1991 (Exhibit (10)-3 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.51 10.24Amendment of Seasonal Exchange Agreement, dated December 4, 1991 between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PSE (Exhibit (10)-107 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.52 10.25Capacity and Energy Exchange Agreement, dated as of October 4, 1991 between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PSE (Exhibit (10)-108 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.53Amendment to Agreement for Firm Power Purchase dated as of September 30, 1991 between Sumas Energy, Inc. and PSE (Exhibit (10)-112 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1991, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.54Letter Agreement dated October 12, 1992 between Tenaska Washington Partners, L.P. and PSE regarding clarification of issues under the Agreement for Firm Power Purchase (Exhibit (10)-121 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.55Consent and Agreement dated October 12, 1992 between PSE and The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., as agent (Exhibit (10)-122 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.56 10.26General Transmission Agreement dated as of December 1, 1994 between the Bonneville Power Administration and PSE (BPA Contract No. DE-MS79-94BP93947) (Exhibit 10.115 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.57 10.27PNW AC Intertie Capacity Ownership Agreement dated as of October 11, 1994 between the Bonneville Power Administration and PSE (BPA Contract No. DE-MS79-94BP94521) (Exhibit 10.116 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994, Commission File No. 1-4393).
 10.58Power Exchange Agreement dated as of September 27, 1995 between British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation and PSE (Exhibit 10.117 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996, Commission File No. 1-4393).
10.59Service Agreement dated April 14, 1993 between Questar Pipeline Corporation and Washington Natural Gas Company for FSS-1 firm storage service at Clay Basin (Exhibit 10-B Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1994, File No. 11271).
10.60Firm Transportation Service Agreement dated October 1, 1990 between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and Washington Natural Gas Company (Exhibit 10-D to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1994, File No. 11271).
10.61Gas Transportation Service Contract dated June 29, 1990 between Washington Natural Gas Company and Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Exhibit 4-A to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1993, File No. 0-951).
10.62Gas Transportation Service Contract dated July 31, 1991 between Washington Natural Gas Company and Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Exhibit 4-A to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1993, File No. 0-951).
10.63 10.28Amendment to Gas Transportation Service Contract dated July 31, 1991 between Washington Natural Gas Company and Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Exhibit 10-E.2 to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1995, File No. 11271).
 10.64Gas Transportation Service Contract dated July 15, 1994 between Washington Natural Gas Company and Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Exhibit 10-E.3 to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1995, File No. 11271).
10.65Amendment to Gas Transportation Service Contract dated August 15, 1994 between Washington Natural Gas Company and Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Exhibit 10-E.4 to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1995, File No. 11271).
10.66Firm Transportation Service Agreement dated March 1, 1992 between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and Washington Natural Gas Company (Exhibit 10-O to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1994, File No. 1-11271).
10.67 10.29Firm Transportation Service Agreement dated January 12, 1994 between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and Washington Natural Gas Company for firm transportation service from Jackson Prairie (Exhibit 10-P to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1994, File No. 1-11271).
 10.68Firm Transportation Service Agreement dated January 12, 1994 between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and Washington Natural Gas Company for firm transportation service from Jackson Prairie (Exhibit 10-Q to Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1994, File No. 1-11271).
10.69Firm Transportation Agreement dated October 27, 1993 between Pacific Gas Transmission Company and Washington Natural Gas Company for firm transportation service from Kingsgate (Exhibit 10-T, Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1994, File No. 1-11271).
10.70Firm Storage Service Agreement and Amendment dated April 30, 1991 between Questar Pipeline Company and Washington Natural Gas Company for firm storage service at Clay Basin filed under cover of Form SE dated December 23, 1991.
10.71 10.30Puget Energy, Inc. Non-employee Director Stock Plan. (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Puget Energy'sEnergy’s Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8 Registration Statement, dated January 2, 2001, Commission File No. 333-41157-99).333-41157-99.)
**10.72 10.31Amendment No. 1 to the Puget Energy, Inc. Non-employee Director Stock Plan, effective as of January 1, 2003.2003 (Exhibit 10.94 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
**10.73 10.32Puget Energy, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan. (incorporated(Incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Puget Energy'sEnergy’s Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8 Registration Statement, dated January 2, 2001, Commission File No. 333-41113-99).333-41113-99.)
**10.74 10.331995 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan. (Exhibit 10.108 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, Commission File No. 1-4393 and 1-16305).
**10.75 10.341995 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (incorporated(Incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Puget Energy'sEnergy’s Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8 Registration Statement, dated January 2, 2001, Commission File No. 333-61851-99).333-61851-99.)
**10.76 10.35Employment agreement with S. P. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and President dated January 7, 2002.2002 (Exhibit 10.104 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
 10.77 10.36Credit Agreement dated June 29, 2001,May 27, 2004, among InfrastruX Group, Inc. and various Banks named therein, BankOne, NAUnion Bank of California as Administrative Agent.administrative agent. (Exhibit 10-1,10.2, Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2001,2004, Commission File No. 1-4393 and 1-16305).
 10.78 10.37Power Sales Contract dated April 15, 2002, between Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington, and PSE, relating to the Priest Rapids Project. (Exhibit 10-1 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
 10.79 10.38Reasonable Portion Power Sales Contract dated April 15, 2002, between Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington, and PSE, relating to the Priest Rapids Project. (Exhibit 10-2 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
 10.80 10.39Additional Power Sales Contract dated April 15, 2002, between Public Utility district No. 2 of Grant County, Washington, and PSE, relating to the Priest Rapids Project. (Exhibit 10-3 to Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
 10.81 10.40Credit Agreement dated December 23, 2002May 27, 2004, covering PSE and various banks named therein, Union Bank One, NAof California as administrative agent. (Exhibit 10.1, Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, Commission File No. 1-4393 and 1-16305).
 10.82 10.41Receivable Purchase Agreement dated December 23, 2002, among PSE, Rainier Receivables, Inc., and Bank One, NA as agent.agent (Exhibit 10.107 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
 10.83 10.42Receivable Sale Agreement dated December 23, 2002, among PSE and Rainier Receivables, Inc.
**10.84 10.43Employment agreement with J.M. Ryan, Vice President Energy Portfolio Management, dated November 30, 2001.2001 (Exhibit 10.109 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
**10.85 10.44Change-in-Control Agreement with J.M. Ryan, Vice President, Energy Portfolio Management, dated November 30, 2001.2001 (Exhibit 10.110 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
**10.86 10.45Change-in-Control Agreement with B. A. Valdman, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, dated November 28, 2003.2003 (Exhibit 10.86 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
**10.87 10.46Change-in-Control Agreement with S. McLain, Senior Vice President, Operations, dated March 12, 1999. (Exhibit 10.87 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
**10.88 10.47Change-in-ControlEmployment Agreement with M. T. Lennon, President and Chief Executive Officer of InfrastruX, dated May 6, 2002.2002 (Exhibit 10.88 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
*10.89Termination Agreement with T.J. Hogan, Senior Vice President, Regional Service and Community Affairs, dated July 31, 2003.
*10.90 10.48Restricted Stock Award Agreement with S. P. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and President dated, January 8, 2004.2004 (Exhibit 10.90 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
**10.91 10.49Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with S. P. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and President dated, January 8, 2004 (Exhibit 10.91 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, Commission File No. 1-16305 and 1-4393).
** 10.50Restricted Stock Award Agreement with S. P. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and President dated, January 8, 2002 (Exhibit 99.1 to Form S-8 Registration Statement, dated January 8, 2002, Commission File No. 333-76424).
** 10.51Nonregulated Stock Option Grant Notice/Agreement with S. P. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and President dated March 11, 2002 (Exhibit 99.1 and Exhibit 99.2 to Form S-8 Registration Statement dated March 18, 2002, Commission File No. 333-84426).
* 10.52Change-in-Control Agreement with E. M. Markell, Vice President Corporate Development, dated May 7, 2003.
* 10.53InfrastruX 2000 Stock Incentive Plan adopted January 26, 2001.
* 10.54InfrastruX 2000 Stock Incentive Plan Stock Option Grant Notice adopted January 26, 2001.
* 10.55Puget Sound Energy Amended and Restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for Senior Management dated October 5, 2004.
* 10.56Puget Sound Energy Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Employees dated January 1, 2003.
* 10.57Puget Sound Energy Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan for Nonemployee Directors dated October 1, 2000.
**  10.58Summary of Director Compensation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Current Report on Form 8-K, filed February 2, 2005, Commission File Nos. 1-4393 and 1-16305).
*12.1Statement setting forth computation of ratios of earnings to fixed charges of Puget Energy (1999(2000 through 2003)2004).
*12.2Statement setting forth computation of ratios of earnings to fixed charges of Puget Sound Energy (1999(2000 through 2003)2004).
*21.1Subsidiaries of Puget Energy.
*21.2Subsidiaries of PSE.
*23.1Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
*31.1Certification of Puget Energy - Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley actAct of 2002 - Stephen P. Reynolds.
*31.2Certification of Puget Energy - Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley actAct of 2002 - Bertrand A. Valdman.
*31.3Certification of Puget Sound Energy - Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley actAct of 2002 - Stephen P. Reynolds.
*31.4Certification of Puget Sound Energy - Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley actAct of 2002 - Bertrand A. Valdman.
*32.1Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley actAct of 2002 - Stephen P. Reynolds.
*32.2Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley actAct of 2002 - Bertrand A. Valdman.
_____________________

        *Filed

*Filed herewith.

**Management contract or compensating plan or arrangement.