UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 10-K


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

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006

FOR-OR-

o                                 TRANSITION REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 0-19281


The AES Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

54 1163725

(State or other jurisdiction of

(I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

4300 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia

22203

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (703) 522-1315

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

Title of Each Class

Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share

 

New York Stock Exchange

AES Trust III, $3.375 Trust Convertible

 

New York Stock Exchange

Preferred Securities

 

 

 

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


None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes xo   No ox

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15 (d) of the Act. Yes o   No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has 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 registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes xo   No ox

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. xo

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filter, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer x      Accelerated filer o      Non-accelerated filer o

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o   No x

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates on June 30, 20052006, the last business day after the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (based on the closing sale price of $16.38$18.45 of the Registrant’s Common Stock, as reported by the New York Stock Exchange on such date) was approximately $10.7$12.137 billion.

The number of shares outstanding of the Registrant’s Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, on March 3, 2006,May 15, 2007, was 657,601,448.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain information from the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 11, 2006 is hereby incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.667,582,977.

 




THE AES CORPORATION
FISCAL YEAR 20052006 FORM 10-K


TABLE OF CONTENTS TO BE UPDATED

PART I

3

 

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

 

513

 

Overview

 

513

 

Operating Subsequent Events

16

Segments

 

617

 

Facilities

 

920

 

Customers

 

1526

 

Employees

 

1526

 

How to Contact AES and Sources of Other Information

 

1526

 

Executive Officers of the Registrant

 

1527

 

Regulatory Matters

 

1728

 

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

 

4149

 

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

 

5464

 

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

 

5464

 

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

 

5464

 

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

 

6272

 

PART II

73

 

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDERSSTOCKHOLDER MATTERS

73

Recent Sales Of Unregistered Securities

 

6373

 

Market Information

 

6373

 

Holders

 

6375

 

Dividends

 

6375

 

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

 

6475

 

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

 

6576

 

Restatement ofOf Consolidated Financial Statements

 

6577

Sale of EDC

85

 

Executive Summary and Overview

 

6686

 

Critical Accounting Estimates

 

7292

 

New Accounting Pronouncements

76

Consolidated Results of Operations

 

7896

 

Capital Resource andResources And Liquidity

 

88107

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

116

 

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURESDISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

 

98118

 

Overview Regarding Market Risks

 

98118

 

Interest Rate Risks

 

98118

 

Foreign Exchange Rate Risk

 

98118

 

Commodity Price Risk

 

99118

 

Value at Risk

 

99118

 

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA DATA

 

101121

 

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

 

161193

 

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

 

161193

 

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION.

 

170206

 


 

 

32




PART I

In this Annual Report the terms “AES,” “the Company,” “us,” or “we” refer to The AES Corporation includingand all of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are collectively referredcollectively. The term “The AES Corporation” refers only to herein as “AES” “the Company,” “us” or “we.”the parent, publicly- held holding company, The AES Corporation, excluding its subsidiaries and affiliates.

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATIONRESTATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SubsequentIn this filing and from time to filingtime, we make statements concerning our expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, strategies, and future events or performance. Such statements are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although we believe that these forward-looking statements and the underlying assumptions are reasonable, we cannot assure you that they will prove to be correct.

Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and there are factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in our forward-looking statements. Some of those factors (in addition to others described elsewhere in this report and in subsequent securities filings) include:

·       our ability to achieve expected rate increases in our Utility businesses;

·       our ability to manage our operation and maintenance costs;

·       the performance and reliability of our generating plants, including our ability to reduce unscheduled down-times;

·       changes in the price of electricity at which our Generation businesses sell into the wholesale market and our Utility businesses purchase to distribute to their customers, and our ability to hedge our exposure to such market price risk;

·       changes in the prices and availability of coal, gas and other fuels and our ability to hedge our exposure to such market price risk, and our ability to meet credit support requirements for fuel and power supply contracts;

·       changes in and access to the financial markets, particularly those affecting the availability and cost of capital in order to refinance existing debt and finance capital expenditures, acquisitions, investments and other corporate purposes;

·       changes in our or any of our subsidiaries’ corporate credit ratings or the ratings of our or any of our subsidiaries’ debt securities or preferred stock, and changes in the rating agencies’ ratings criteria;

·       changes in inflation, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates;

·       our ability to purchase and sell assets at attractive prices and on other attractive terms;

·       our ability to locate and acquire attractive “greenfield” projects and our ability to finance, construct and begin operating our “greenfield” projects on schedule and within budget;

·       the expropriation or nationalization of our businesses or assets by foreign governments, whether with or without adequate compensation;

·       changes in laws, rules and regulations affecting our business, including, but not limited to, deregulation of wholesale power markets and its effects on competition, the ability to recover net utility assets and other potential stranded costs by our utilities, the establishment of a regional transmission organization that includes our utility service territory, the application of market power criteria by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), changes in law resulting from new federal energy legislation, including the effects of the repeal of Public Utility Holding


Company Act (“PUHCA”), and changes in political or regulatory oversight or incentives affecting our alternative energy businesses, including tax incentives;

·       changes in environmental, tax and other laws, including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur nitrogen, carbon, mercury, and other substances;

·       the economic climate, particularly the state of the economy in the areas in which we operate;

·       variations in weather, especially mild winters and cooler summers in the areas in which we operate, and the occurrence of hurricanes and other storms and disasters;

·       our ability to meet our expectations in the development, construction, operation and performance of our alternative energy businesses, which rely, in part, on actual wind volumes in areas affecting our existing and planned wind farms performing consistently with our expectations, and actual wind turbine performance operating consistently with our expectations, the continued attractiveness of market prices for carbon offsets under markets governed by the Kyoto Protocol, and consistent and orderly regulatory procedures governing the application, regulation, issuance of Certified Emission Reduction (“CER”) credits and the extension of such regulations beyond 2012;

·       our ability to keep up with advances in technology;

·       the potential effects of threatened or actual acts of terrorism and war;

·       changes in tax laws and the effects of our strategies to reduce tax payments;

·       the effects of litigation and government investigations;

·       changes in accounting standards, corporate governance and securities law requirements;

·       our ability to remediate and compensate for the material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting; and

·       our ability to attract and retain talented directors, management and other personnel, including, but not limited to, financial personnel in our foreign businesses that have extensive knowledge of United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).

Except to the extent required by the federal securities laws, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Restatement Of Consolidated Financial Statements

Background

The Company has previously identified certain material weaknesses related to its system of internal control over financial reporting. These material weaknesses, as described in the Company’s previously filed Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 included the following general areas:

·       Aggregation of control deficiencies at our Cameroonian subsidiary;

·       Lack of U.S. GAAP expertise in Brazilian businesses;

·       Treatment of intercompany loans denominated in other than the functional currency;

·       Derivative accounting; and

·       Income taxes.


In part, the continuing remediation of these material weaknesses resulted in the identification of certain material financial statement errors. The Company has restated annual reportits financial statements for years ended prior to December 31, 2005 on Form 10-K/A with the Securities Exchange Commission onMarch 30, 2005, January 19, 2006 and April 4, 2006 largely as a result of material weaknesses. As part of the Company’s plan to eliminate these material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, the Company discoveredhas embarked on a program, over a several year period, to improve the quality of its previously issued restated consolidatedpeople, processes and financial statementssystems. This has included a broad restructuring of the global finance organization to operate on a more centralized basis and the recruitment of additional accounting, financial reporting, income tax, internal control and internal audit staff around the world.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, in conjunction with these improvements, continued remediation of some of our material weaknesses and overall strengthening of controls across our businesses, the Company identified certain additional errors in accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities, minority interest expense and income taxes. The errors in accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities resulted in differences in previously issued consolidated interim financial statements for certain quarterly periods in 2004 sufficient to require restatement of prior period interim results. The errors in accounting for income taxes and minority interest expensewhich required the restatement of previously issued consolidated annualfinancial statements for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 and for the previously issued interim periods ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006 and September 30, 2006.

The Company’s remediation efforts for certain material weaknesses reported as of December 31, 2005, as well as improvements to controls across the Company, resulted in the identification of errors included in the current restatement. In addition, a number of immaterial errors were identified as a result of the continued strengthening of the global finance organization. The Company believes that the increase in technical tax and accounting expertise, increased staffing levels at certain of our businesses and at our corporate office, and a focused effort on increasing the number of financial audit activities have contributed to the overall improvement of the accuracy of our financial statements. It also resulted in the identification of material weaknesses in areas not previously reported, although not all weaknesses contributed to the need to restate the consolidated financial statements. For further discussion of our material weaknesses, see Item 9A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The restatement adjustments resulted in a decrease to previously reported income from continuing operations and net income of $24 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an increase of $2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. It also resulted in a decrease to previously reported income from continuing operations and net income of $3 million for the three months ending March 31, 2006, an increase to net income of $10 million for the six months ending June 30, 2006 and an increase to net income of $30 million for the nine months ending September 30, 2006. These interim period adjustments for the first three quarters of 2006 were largely the result of reversing errors previously corrected in these periods, which were not previously considered material either to the period in which they were corrected or the prior period to which they actually arose. Additionally, the cumulative adjustment for all periods prior to 2004 resulted in an increase to retained deficit of $50 million.


The following table quantifies the net impact of the restatement corrections by key income statement line items for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and includes the resulting impact on diluted earnings per share from continuing operations. The primary line items affected include revenue, cost of sales, gain (loss) on foreign currency transactions, income tax expense and the related impacts on minority interest expense.

 

 

Year Ended

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions, except
per share amounts)

 

Income from continuing operations as previously reported

 

$

598

 

$

266

 

Changes in income from continuing operations from restatement due to:

 

 

 

 

 

Increase in revenue

 

25

 

1

 

Decrease in cost of sales

 

5

 

18

 

(Increase) decrease in general and administrative expense

 

(4

)

1

 

Increase in other income

 

11

 

1

 

(Increase) in goodwill and asset impairment expense

 

(6

)

(1

)

(Increase) decrease in foreign currency transaction losses

 

(13

)

27

 

Decrease in equity earnings of affiliates

 

(6

)

(7

)

(Increase) in income tax expense

 

(27

)

(24

)

(Increase) in minority interest and other(1)

 

(9

)

(14

)

(Decrease) increase in income from continuing operations

 

(24

)

2

 

Income from continuing operations as restated

 

$

574

 

$

268

 

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations as previously reported

 

$

0.90

 

$

0.41

 

Changes due to restatement effects

 

(0.03

)

 

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations as restated

 

$

0.87

 

$

0.41

 

Diluted shares outstanding

 

664.6

 

648.1

 


(1)          Minority interest and other includes $12 million and $13 million of minority interest expense for the periods ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively, related to the impact of the restatement adjustments at entities with minority interests.

The Company has been cooperating with an informal inquiry by the Staff of the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) concerning the Company’s restatements and related matters, and has been providing information and documents to the SEC Staff on a voluntary basis. Because the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this inquiry and the SEC Staff may disagree with the manner in which the Company has accounted for and reported the financial impact of the adjustments to previously filed financial statements, there may be a risk that the inquiry by the SEC could lead to circumstances in which the Company may have to further restate previously filed financial statements, amend prior filings or take other actions not currently contemplated.

The restatement adjustments include several key categories as described below:

Brazil Adjustments

Prior year errors related to certain subsidiaries in Brazil include the following:

·       decrease of the U.S. GAAP fixed asset basis and related depreciation at Eletropaulo of $21 million in 2005 and $16 million in 2004 (the impact net of tax and minority interest is $4 million in 2005 and $4 million in 2004); and

·       other errors identified through account reconciliation or review procedures.


The cumulative impact on net income was an increase of $6 million and $3 million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

La Electricidad de Caracas (“EDC”)

Prior year errors related to the Company’s Venezuelan subsidiary, EDC, include the following:

·       $22 million revenue increase predominantly related to an error in updating the current tariff rates in the unbilled revenue calculation for 2005,

·       $10 million increase in foreign currency transaction expense posted incorrectly to the balance sheet in 2005, and

·       other errors identified through account reconciliation or review procedures.

The cumulative impact of all EDC adjustments on net income was an increase of $2 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004.

Capitalization of Certain Costs

Certain errors were discovered with fixed asset balances at several of the Company’s facilities related to capitalization of development costs, overhead and capitalized interest. The cumulative impact on net income for capitalization errors was a decrease of $4 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and a decrease of $2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Derivatives

Adjustments were identified resulting from the detailed review of certain prior year contracts and include the following:

·       the evaluation of hedge effectiveness; and

·       the identification and evaluation of derivatives.

The most significant adjustment involved a power sales agreement signed in 2002 between the Company’s generation facility in Cartagena, Spain, an unconsolidated subsidiary accounted for using the equity method of accounting, and its power offtaker. The power sales agreement had a pricing component that was tied to the U.S. dollar, although the entity’s own functional currency was the Euro and that of the offtaker was the Euro. In addition, a maintenance service agreement related to the Cartagena facility included a pricing mechanism that was tied to changes in the U.S. dollar, when the entity’s functional currency was the Euro and the service provider’s functional currency was the Yen.

Under the guidance of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” these contracts contained embedded derivatives that are required to be bifurcated from the contract and recorded at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in the results of operations. The net result of these adjustments was a decrease of $3 million and an increase of $4 million in equity in earnings of affilitates for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The cumulative impact of all derivative adjustments on net income was a decrease of $4 million in 2005 and an increase of $5 million in 2004.


Income Tax Adjustments

Income tax adjustments relate primarily to the following:

·       A $20 million adjustment to correct income tax expense in the fourth quarter of 2005 as a result of an incorrect 2004 tax return to accrual adjustment, previously disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for September 30, 2006; and

·       A $21 million adjustment to record income tax benefit in 2004 as a result of a change in local income tax reporting for leases in Qatar, offset by adjustments to correct income tax expense for certain state deferred tax assets and other miscellaneous items.

The net impact of individual income tax adjustments resulted in an increase to income tax expense of approximately $18 million in 2005 and $7 million in 2004. The cumulative impact on income tax expense as a result of all restatement adjustments was an increase of approximately $27 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an increase of approximately $24 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Other Adjustments

As a result of evaluatingwork performed in the course of our year end closing process, certain other adjustments were identified which decreased net income by $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and increased net income by $1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Balance Sheet Adjustments

Adjustments at certain businesses in Brazil

The Company’s Brazilian business, Sul, records customer receipts used to provide line extensions as an offset against property, plant and equipment. However, the regulatory body of Brazil never issued any guidance with respect to the treatment of these customer receipts. As such, we believe that a more appropriate classification of these customer receipts would have been as a regulatory liability given that the actual treatment as an offset against property, plant and equipment was never approved by the regulatory body of Brazil. Additionally, the regulatory liability treatment provides for the possibility of a future obligation back to the customers, which was confirmed by a recent regulatory ruling. The increase to property, plant and equipment and increase to long-term regulatory liabilities was $93 million and $62 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

Cartagena Deconsolidation

Upon the Company’s adoption of Financial Interpretation No.46, Variable Interest Entities (“FIN No. 46R”), as of January 1, 2004, the Company incorrectly continued to consolidate our business in Cartagena, Spain. An adjustment was made to deconsolidate the Cartagena balance sheet and statement of operations and to reflect AES’ share of the results of it’s’ operations using the equity method of accounting. This resulted in a decrease to investments in affiliates of $55 and $39 million; a decrease in net property, plant and equipment of $570 and $387 million; and a decrease in non-recource debt of $579 and $497 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

Restricted Cash

Certain balance sheet reclassifications were recorded at December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 that were the result of errors in the presentation of restricted cash. These reclassifications resulted in a reduction in cash and cash equivalents and an increase in restricted cash by $63 million and $97 million, in 2005 and 2004, respectively.


Share-based Compensation

The Company recently concluded an internal review of accounting for share-based compensation (the “LTC Review”), which originally was disclosed in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on February 26, 2007. As a result of the LTC Review, the Company identified certain errors in its previous accounting for share-based compensation. These errors required adjustments to the Company’s previous accounting for these awards under the guidance of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (“APB No. 25”), Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (“FAS No. 123”) and FASB Statement No. 123R (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (“FAS No. 123R”). As described below, the Company is recording adjustments to its prior financial statements resulting in additional cumulative pre-tax compensation expense for the years 2000-2005 of $36 million ($26 million net of taxes). None of these adjustments, individually or in the aggregate, is quantitatively material to any period presented.

In addition, the Company reducedhas identified accounting for share-based compensation as a material weakness and has prepared a remediation plan to strengthen further its granting and accounting practices to avoid similar errors in the future. See Item 9A—Disclosure Controls and Procedures of this Form 10-K for further explanation of the material weakness and the Company’s remediation plans.

Background of the LTC Review

Beginning in mid-2006 the Company conducted limited assessments of its share-based compensation practices. Based on those assessments, it did not appear likely that the potential accounting adjustments relating to share-based compensation issues identified as of that time would be material to the Company’s prior period financial statements. However, information subsequently developed by the Company’s Internal Audit group indicated that there had been control deficiencies and inadequate oversight related to historical granting practices and accounting for share-based compensation.

Following consideration of this information, the Company determined that a more comprehensive review of prior period awards was warranted. Accordingly, in early February 2007, the Company requested that an outside consulting firm assist with the collection and processing of data relating to the Company’s share-based compensation awards. The outside consulting firm also provided a team of forensic accountants to assist the Company with its: (i) evaluation of relevant SEC and FASB guidance relating to share-based compensation; (ii) implementation of procedures for review of electronic data, including e-mails; and (iii) analysis of the information used to determine measurement dates, strike prices and valuations required to reach the resulting accounting adjustments. The Company also asked an outside law firm to assist the Company with the LTC Review. This law firm had already been assisting the Company in responding to requests for documents and information from the SEC Staff principally relating to the Company’s restatements for the years 2002-2005. As disclosed in a Form 8-K filed on March 19, 2007, the Financial Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors formed an Ad Hoc Committee of three independent directors to review the Company’s procedures, conclusions and recommendations regarding the LTC Review, as described herein.

Purposes and Scope of the LTC Review

The LTC Review was designed and conducted principally to determine whether any adjustments to the Company’s prior period financial statements were required as a result of incorrect accounting for share-based compensation, which includes stock options and restricted stock units. A secondary purpose of the LTC Review was to evaluate the Company’s historical practices and procedures for making share-based compensation awards, including the conduct of individuals involved in the granting process.


The Company determined that a ten-year review period covering the years 1997-2006 (the “Review Period”) was appropriate. Supporting documentation was more readily available in more recent years and, in many instances, the Company experienced difficulty locating and/or gathering documentation for the years 1997-1999. Therefore, the Company determined that a review of years preceding 1997 was unlikely to result in information susceptible to meaningful analysis.

A significant accounting issue identified in the LTC Review related to the determination of the “measurement date” with respect to share-based compensation awards. During the Review Period, the Company had generally used the indicated grant date as the measurement date for accounting purposes, when in many cases the indicated grant date actually preceded the measurement date as correctly defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). The U.S. GAAP technical accounting literature in effect during the accounting periods under review defined the measurement date for purposes of determining share-based compensation expense as the date on which the Company finalized an individual’s share-based award, to include the number of units awarded at a determinable strike price.

The Company gathered documentation and conducted analysis related to measurement dates with respect to all of the grants awarded in the Review Period, a total of approximately 29,600 stock option grants, representing approximately 45,380,000 options as well as approximately 4,000,000 restricted stock units for non-directors. These grants included both the Company’s annual compensation awards, known as “on-cycle” grants, and all awards made at other times, referred to as “off-cycle” grants. The LTC Review was designed to assess the appropriate measurement date for each of the various types of grants awarded during the Review Period. The Company considered SEC guidance and GAAP in evaluating known facts and circumstances in an attempt reasonably to determine the date that the share-based compensation awards were final. The Company collected information through targeted searches of various sources, including human resources and accounting databases, paper and electronic files and servers, Board of Directors and Compensation Committee meeting minutes, payroll records, and acquisition and business development documentation. The Company also interviewed certain current and former employees, officers and directors.

Although there generally was less documentation readily available for the years 1997-1999, the Company did review grants in those years, and based on available information, attempted to make a reasonable assessment of the correct measurement dates and potential accounting adjustments for the purposes of assessing whether any charge from that period could be material to the Company’s financial statements in those years. Based on this analysis, the Company determined that any errors identified during that period would not have resulted in a material impact to the Company’s stockholders’ equity and no adjustments were made.

The Company’s Accounting Adjustments

As a result of the LTC Review, the Company has determined that adjustments resulting in charges for share-based compensation should be recorded for the years 2000 through 2005. The additional cumulative pre-tax compensation expense totals $36 million ($26 million net of taxes). The effect of recognizing additional non-cash, share-based compensation expense resulting from the charges mentioned above by year is as follows:

 

 

Pre-Tax

 

After-Tax

 

Fiscal Year Ended (in millions)

 

 

 

Expense

 

Expense

 

2000

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

2001

 

 

$

15

 

 

 

$

11

 

 

2002

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

5

 

 

2003

 

 

$

4

 

 

 

$

3

 

 

2004

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

2005

 

 

$

1

 

 

 

$

1

 

 


The Company also is recording a charge of $1 million (pre-tax) relating to the first three previously reported quarters of 2006, which primarily relate to prior year grants in which expense was carried forward to 2006.

None of these adjustments, individually or in the aggregate, is quantitatively material to any period presented; however, the Company will reflect these adjustments by reducing stockholders’ equity by $12$25 million as of January 1, 2003 as2004 for the cumulative effect of the correction of errors for allthe periods proceedingfrom January 1, 2003, and restated its consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 and its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004.

The restatement adjustments resulted in an increase to previously reported net income of $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 and in a decrease to previously reported net income of $17 million for the year ended2000 through December 31, 2003. There was no impact on gross margin or net cash flow from operating activities of the Company for any years presented. Based upon management’s review it has been determined that these errors were inadvertentGeneral and unintentional. The errors relate to the following areas:

A.              Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Company determined that it failed to perform adequate on-going effectiveness testing for three interest rate cash flow hedges and one foreign currency cash flow hedge during 2004 as required by SFAS No. 133. As a result, the Company should have discontinued hedge accounting and recognized changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments in earnings prospectively from the last valid effectiveness assessment until the earlier of either (1) the expiration of the derivative instrument or (2) the re-designation of the derivative instrument as a hedging activity.

The net impact related to the correction of these errors to previously reported net income resulted in a decrease of $4 million and an increase of $2 millionadministrative expense will be adjusted for the years ending December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.2005 and the first three quarters of 2006 as outlined above.

B.Annual On-Cycle Awards.   Income TaxCompensation charges for annual on-cycle grants were determined based upon facts and Minority Interest Adjustmentscircumstances relating to the dates the awards were final and the selection of the appropriate strike prices. The Company determined new measurement dates based on a determination of the date an award was final using the following methodology. Grants to Executive Officers and certain other senior executives (“Senior Leaders”) were considered to be final for accounting purposes upon Compensation Committee approval of a fixed number of options at a specific exercise price, or in certain years based on subsequent action by the Company establishing the grant date and strike price. Grants to all other employees were considered to be final for accounting purposes on the date that management completed its allocation of substantially all awards to the pool of employees receiving awards. In addition to measurement date changes, the LTC Review identified three years in which the Company had set the strike price for the annual on-cycle grants either as the opening price or as the intra-day low trading price of the Company’s stock during a four-day period over which a Board meeting was held. To determine the fair market value of the stock on the re-determined measurement date for accounting purposes, the Company used the closing price of the stock on that date. Accordingly, for financial accounting purposes, the amount of compensation expense recorded by the Company reflects both measurement date changes and intrinsic value changes for annual on-cycle awards. The predominant causes of the charges relating to on-cycle grants were (i) with respect to Executive Officers and Senior Leaders, use of a grant date associated with an annual Board meeting, where the grant date and strike price had not been determined with finality until several days after the meeting; and (ii) with respect to all other employees, the failure to finalize a complete and accurate schedule of the awards to be made to the employees contemporaneously with the intended grant date.

Off-Cycle Grants.   Compensation charges for off-cycle grants also were based primarily upon the dates the awards were final. The majority of the measurement date changes with respect to off-cycle grants related to the following five categories: (1) awards to newly hired employees; (2) awards upon promotions of existing employees or other change in status; (3) awards made in conjunction with transactions or other successful business development efforts; (4) “Founders” and other similar awards made in recognition of outstanding service, and (5) corrections to previous awards subsequently determined to have been erroneous.

The predominant cause of the measurement date errors in each of these categories of awards was the lack of adequate contemporaneous documentation supporting the intended grant. Accordingly, the amount of compensation expense recorded by the Company for these categories of off-cycle awards is based primarily upon measurement date changes. The adjustments reflect available evidence concerning the dates on which: (i) the recipients were entitled to receive the awards, (ii) the grants were intended to be made, and (iii) the terms of the grants were final.

In addition to the categories above, off-cycle grants also were defined to include modifications of prior grants. Compensation charges for grant modifications were based upon an analysis of changes to vesting and exercise periods. As a result of its review, the Company has determined that certain modifications were calculated using an incorrect method and others were not communicated to appropriate accounting personnel. The most significant modification relates to a grant to a former CEO that was erroneously accounted for by using an intrinsic value calculation instead of a fair value calculation following the Company’s decision to adopt FAS 123 effective January 1, 2003. The Company is recording a $3.1 million charge to account for this error for the year end closing review process,2003.


Summary of Significant Charges By Grant Year

Set forth in this section is a summary of the Company discovered certaincharges resulting from grants awarded in the years 2000, 2001 and 2003, which make up more than 95% of the additional expenses requiring adjustments to the prior period financial statements. This information is different than the discussion and table above, which described the effect of recognizing these additional charges over the applicable accounting periods in the Company’s financial statements. For these years, further information concerning the type of grant (on-cycle or off-cycle), the categories of the recipients and the nature of the change resulting in the adjustment is set out below.

For grants made in 2000, the total charge resulting from the LTC Review is approximately $22.9 million. Of that amount, approximately $3.8 million resulted from the changes to the on-cycle grants to Executive Officers and Senior Leaders. Of the remaining amount, approximately $17.2 million resulted from the changes to the on-cycle grants to all other errorsemployees, and approximately $1.9 million resulted from off-cycle grants.

For grants made in 2001, the total charge resulting from the LTC Review is approximately $8.7 million. Of that amount, approximately $7.2 million resulted from the changes to on-cycle grants to Executive Officers and Senior Leaders. Of the remaining amount, approximately $250,000 resulted from the changes to the on-cycle grants to all other employees, and approximately $1.2 million resulted from off-cycle grants.

For grants made in 2003, the total charge is approximately $6.3 million. Of this amount, $3.1 million related to the recording of income tax liabilitiesmodification to a grant to a former CEO as described above, and minority interest expense. The adjustments primarily include:

·       An increase in income tax expense related to the recording of certain historical withholding tax liabilities at one of our El Salvador subsidiaries;

·       An increase in minority interest expenseapproximately $800,000 related to a correctiongrant to a director approved by shareholders where the grant date was recorded as having been finalized on the date of an earlier Board meeting. The remaining charges resulted from changes to certain on-cycle and off-cycle grants.

The Company’s Review of Historic Practices

As noted, the primary purpose of the allocationLTC Review was to conduct a comprehensive review of income tax expensethe Company’s accounting for share-based compensation and to minority shareholders. This allocation pertainedrecord any required adjustments in its financial statements. The LTC Review was not an independent investigation relating to historic practices and procedures. However, during the course of the LTC Review, the Company identified certain deferred tax adjustments recordedhistorical practices raising issues relating to share-based compensation and conducted a review of those practices, limited in scope as noted herein. Based on the information to date, the Company has identified certain historical issues and practices of concern relating to the annual on-cycle and off-cycle grants, which fall within the following five categories: (1) with respect to the 1997-1998 annual on-cycle grants, reported ratification of undocumented prior on-cycle grants by the Compensation Committee; (2) with respect to the 1999-2001 annual grants, after-the-fact selection of low strike prices within the four-day period during which Board meetings were held, and inaccurate Compensation Committee meeting minutes relating to grant date and strike price selection; (3) issuance of off-cycle grants prior to 2004 based on apparent, but not actual, delegation of authority, as well as general deficiencies in administration of off-cycle grants; (4) failure to establish and/or comply with certain formal corporate governance procedures in periods through 2004; and (5) lack of and/or insufficient controls and procedures, and/or lack of knowledge of applicable accounting standards, in connection with administration of share-based compensation. The Company notes that the senior officers who were primarily involved in the original restatementselection of the prices of the annual on-cycle grants from 1999-2001 were the Company’s President and CEO at onethe time, who retired in 2002; the Company’s CFO at the time, who left full time employment with the Company in early 2006 (he remains under an employment agreement through March 2008, although he is not active in management); and the Company’s General Counsel at the time, who presently is the Company’s Executive Vice President and President, Alternative Energy and is no longer involved in the Company’s legal functions or Board consideration or approval of our Brazilian generating companies. In addition, minority interest expenseshare-based compensation.

12




The information developed in the LTC Review did not establish that any officer or director of the Company manipulated the selection of grant dates or strike prices with actual knowledge that they were violating or causing the Company to violate accounting principles or requirements of the Company’s stock options plans, or that there was also corrected at this subsidiary asany effort to conceal information relating to the selection of grant dates or strike prices from the Company’s outside auditors. However, a resultll of identifying differencesthe matters described herein with respect to the Company’s general views and issues arising from the LTC Review are qualified by the fact that, in light of the limitations discussed herein, there may be additional documents, witnesses or other information not reviewed that might have indicated a more comprehensive reconciliationdifferent result

The limitations of the LTC Review include the fact that the Company did not review backups of data from the First Class System (“First Class”), the Company’s e-mail system prior year statutory financial records to U.S. GAAP financial statements;January 1, 2002, when the Company switched to Microsoft Outlook. The Company also did not attempt to restore approximately 460 computer tapes (the “Backup Tapes”) that are stored by an off-site storage vendor. The Company believes that these tapes comprise backups of certain Company electronic data (including e-mail) backed up on certain dates from approximately late 2001 through early 2004, but the Company has not located an index identifying the contents of the tapes.

·       A reduction of 2004 income tax expense relatedThe Company decided not to adjustments derived from 2004 income tax returns filed in 2005.


The net impact relatedattempt to restore and review First Class or the correction of these errorsBackup Tapes because: (i) the Company was able to previously reported net income resulted in an increase of $10 million and a decrease of $19 millionreview certain electronic data, including for the years ending December 31, 20041997-2002, as well as paper files and 2003, respectively. other available information relating to the majority of the grants made during the Review Period; (ii) the Company believes that it is unlikely that information from these sources would materially alter the accounting adjustments that have been determined to be necessary; (iii) the Company has implemented or will implement measures necessary to provide effective controls and procedures in these areas; (iv) of the senior officers who were primarily involved in the selection of the prices of the annual on-cycle grants from 1999-2001, the former CEO is no longer with the Company, the former CFO is no longer an officer and is not active in the Company’s management, and the former General Counsel has a different position in the Company that does not involve corporate legal responsibilities or participation in Board consideration or approval of share-based compensation; and (v) based on consultation with a reputable information technology vendor, the Company determined that neither First Class nor the Backup Tapes could be restored for review without causing substantial delays in the LTC Review. In addition, while the Company restated stockholders’ equity asconducted more than twenty interviews with persons who, by virtue of January 1, 2003 by $12 million as a correctiontheir position or otherwise, were believed to be most likely to have relevant knowledge, the Company did not interview every director or employee who may have had any involvement with options grants or accounting for these errors in all periods preceding January 1, 2003.share-based compensation.

C.               Other Balance Sheet Reclassifications

Certain other balance sheet reclassifications were recorded at December 31, 2004 including a $45 million reclassification which reduced Accounts Receivables and increased Other Current Assets (regulatory assets).

ITEM 1.                 BUSINESS

Overview

AES,We are a global power company formed in 1981, is a Delaware corporation holding company that through itsincorporated in Delaware in 1981. Through our subsidiaries, operateswe operate a portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses in 25 countriesand investments on five continents.continents and in 27 countries.

Our Businesses

We operate in two types of businesses within the power sector:businesses. The first is our distribution business, which we generate power for salerefer to as Utilities, in which we operate electric utilities and other wholesale customers; second, we operate utilities that distributesell power to customers in the retail (including residential), commercial, industrial and governmental sectors. These customers are typically through integrated transmission and distribution systems. Each typeend users of electricity. The second is our Generation business, generates approximately one half of the Company’s revenues.

The generation and distribution of electricity are essential services required in all industrialized societies. We are committedwhere we sell power to helping meet the world’s need for electricity by supplying power from our existing portfolio,wholesale customers such as well as by growing our portfolio through the development and construction of new power plants and through selective acquisitions. We believe that being a large participant in the global power sector gives us the best chance to accomplish our goals. Some of the benefits of being a large organization are the ability to take advantage of scale and to have the resources to develop better operating and management practices to increase overall Company efficiency and productivity. By maintaining a substantial geographic footprint, we are well positioned to pursue opportunities in those markets with favorable characteristics for new investment, namely those having a large and growing need for power. We target specific countriesutilities or major geographic regions as areas of primary focus, and seek to build sufficient knowledge and experience in order to increase our ability to successfully compete, and ultimately grow our businesses, in those targeted markets. We believe that this approach also allows us to more efficiently identify and manage the risks inherent in our business.

other intermediaries. In addition to our primarytraditional generation and distribution operations, we are also developing an alternative energy business. The revenues and earnings growth of both our Utilities and Generation businesses vary with changes in electricity demand.


Our Utilities business consists primarily of operating a global power portfolio, we also are engaged13 distribution companies in seven countries with over 10 million end-use customers. All of these companies operate in a exploringdefined service area. This segment is comprised of:

·       integrated utilities located in:

·        the United States—Indianapolis Power & Light (“IPL”);

·   Cameroon—AES SONEL; and promoting a set of related activities that include alternative energy businesses such as wind generation, the supply of liquefied natural gas to certain targeted North American markets, the production of greenhouse gas reduction activities

·       distribution companies located in:

·        Brazil—AES Eletropaulo and related industries involving environmental issuesAES Sul,

·        Argentina—Empresa Distribuidora La Plata S.A. (“EDELAP”), Empresa Distribuidora de Energia Norte (“EDEN”) and the application of new energy technologies. At present, these initiatives represent growth opportunities for us but currently account for aEmpresa Distribuidora de minimus amount of revenueEnergia Sure (“EDES”),

·        El Salvador—Compañia de Alumbrado Eléctrico de San Salvador, S.A. de C.V. (“CAESS”), Compania, S. En C. de C.V. (“AES CLESA”), Distribuidora Electrica de Usulutan, S.A. de C.V. (“DEUSEM”) and earnings.Empresa Electrica de Oriente (“EEO”) and

Our financial results are reported within three business segments: Contract Generation, Competitive Supply·        Ukraine—Kievoblenergo and Regulated Utilities.Rivneenergo.

Our generation business encompasses our contract generation and competitive supply segments. Performance drivers for our contract generation and competitive supply segments include plant reliability and fuel and fixed cost management. Growth is largely tied to securing new power purchase agreements and expanding capacity. The contract generation and competitive supply segments contributed 37% and 11% of revenues, respectively, for the year 2005.


Performance drivers for our regulated utilities segmentthese businesses include, providing reliableamong other things, reliability of service, managingmanagement of working capital, obtainingnegotiation of tariff adjustments, and appropriatecompliance with extensive regulatory treatment for new investmentsrequirements and, in developing countries, reduction of commercial and technical losses. The regulated utilities segment contributed 52% of revenues for the year 2005. The revenues and earnings growth of both our generation and utility businesses vary with changes in electricity demand.

Our management structure is divided into four regions: North America; Latin America; Europe, Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”); and Asia, each led by a regional president who reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). This structure allows us to place senior leaders and resources closer to our businesses around the world to further improve operating performance and integrate operations and development on a more localized level. This helps us leverage regional market trends to enhance our competitiveness and identify and capitalize on key business development opportunities across our lines of business. The Company also maintains a corporate Business Development group which manages large scale transactions such as mergers and acquisitions, and portfolio management, as well as targeted strategic initiatives such as the creation of an alternative energy business.

Operating Segments

See Note 21 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional financial information about our business segments as well as information about our geographic operations.

Contract Generation

Our contract generation businesses own and operate plants that sell electricity and related products to utilities or other wholesale customers under long-term contracts. Our contract generation facilities generally limit their exposure to commodity price risks, primarily electricity price volatility and frequently volume risk, by entering into power sales agreements of five years or longer for 75% or more of their output capacity. The remaining terms of these agreements range from 1 to 25 years. These facilities also generally enter into long-term agreements for most of their fuel supply requirements, or they may enter into tolling or “pass through” arrangements in which the counter-party directly assumes the risks associated with providing the necessary fuel and then markets the generated power. Through these types of contractual agreements, our contract generation businesses generally produce more predictable cash flows and earnings. The degree of predictability varies from business to business based on the degree to which their exposure is limited by the contracts they have negotiated with their buyers and fuel suppliers.

Our contract generation segment is comprised of our interests in 76 power generating facilities totaling approximately 23.0 gigawatts of capacity located in 17 countries. This includes minority interests in 28 power generation facilities totaling over 2.0 gigawatts of capacity. In addition, there are three plants under construction in three countries which, when completed, will add a total capacity of approximately 1.4 gigawatts to our contract generation segment. AES also operates, under either management or operations and maintenance agreements, 377 MW of wind generation facilities in the U.S. Of the 23.0 gigawatts of current operating capacity, 50% is derived from gas-fired facilities, 28% from coal-fired facilities, 13% from hydro facilities, 7% from oil-fired facilities, 2% from wind facilities, and less than 1% from biomass facilities.

In most of our contract generating businesses, a single customer contracts for most or all of a particular facility’s generated power. To reduce the resulting counter-party credit risk, we seek to contract with creditworthy customers. We also seek to obtain sovereign government guarantees of the customer’s obligations. However, we do business with many customers in many countries where neither the customer nor the government has investment grade ratings. We believe that locating our plants in different geographic areas helps to mitigate the effects of regional economic downturns, thereby offsetting some of


the risks associated with operating in less developed countries. Additionally, in countries in which we own distribution companies, our contract generation businesses seek to contract with the distribution companies that we control.

Certain of our subsidiaries and affiliates are in various stages of developing and constructing new power plants (known as “greenfield power plants” or “greenfield”). Some have signed long-term contracts or made similar arrangements for the sale of electricity. During 2005, the Company made significant progress on important growth projects. Among these plants under construction, the Company’s 120 MW Buffalo Gap wind power project in Texas began commercial operations in 2006. The Company’s 1,200 MW gas-fired power plant in Cartagena, Spain is scheduled for completion in 2006. The Company’s new 120 MW Los Vientos diesel-fired peaking facility which will serve the largest power market in Chile, is expected to be on-line in the second quarter of 2006. We currently believe that our costs related to these projects are recoverable but can provide no assurance that we will complete these projects and/or that these projects will reach commercial operation.

In the contract generation segment, we face most of our competition prior to the execution of a power sales agreement during the development phase of a project. Our competitors in this business include other independent power producers and equipment manufacturers, as well as various utilities and their affiliates. During the operational phase, we traditionally have faced limited competition in this segment due to the long-term nature of the generation contracts. However, since competitive power markets have been introduced and new market participants have been added, we will encounter increased competition in attracting new customers and maintaining our current customers as our existing contracts expire.

Competitive Supply

Our competitive supply businesses own and operate plants that sell electricity to wholesale customers in competitive markets. These plants typically sell into local power pools under short-term (less than one year) contracts or into daily spot markets. Demand can be affected by weather, electricity transmission constraints, fuel prices and competition. This business segment offers more varied sales, earnings and cash flows than our other segments.

In contrast to the contract generation segment discussed above, these facilities generally sell less than 75% of their output under long-term contracts. The prices at which these facilities sell electricity under short-term contracts and in the spot electricity markets are unpredictable and can be volatile. In addition, our operational results in this segment are more sensitive to the impact of market fluctuations in the price of natural gas, coal, oil and other fuels. These businesses also have more significant needs for working capital or credit to support their operations than our businesses in the contract generation segment.

Our competitive supply segment is comprised of 27 power generation facilities totaling approximately 13 gigawatts of capacity located in 7 countries. Of the total 13 gigawatts of current operating capacity, 59% is derived from coal-fired facilities, 8% from gas-fired facilities, 29% from hydro facilities, 2% from oil facilities, 1% from petroleum coke facilities and less than 1% from biomass facilities. In November 2005, we completed an output upgrade of the Alicura facility in Argentina, which resulted in an additional 10 MW of capacity.

The absence of long-term contracts makes future production volumes uncertain, which in turn makes it difficult to forecast the amount of fuel needed to support those volumes. As a result, competitive supply businesses are exposed to volume risk in connection with their purchases of natural gas, coal and other raw materials. Where appropriate, we have hedged a portion of our financial performance against the effects of fluctuations in energy commodity prices using such strategies as commodity forward contracts, futures, swaps and options.


Although we maintain credit policies with regard to our counterparties, there can be no assurance that ultimately they will be able to fulfill their contractual obligations. Volatility in electricity markets causes increases in credit risk, a decline in the number and quality of market participants with strong credit ratings and considerably less liquidity in energy markets.

We compete in this segment with numerous other independent power producers, energy marketers and traders, energy merchants, transmission and distribution providers and retail energy suppliers. Competitive factors in this segment include reliability, operational cost and third party credit requirements.

Regulated Utilities

Our regulated utilities business segment consists of 14 distribution companies in seven countries with approximately 11 million customers. Our regulated utilities aggregate approximately 7.0 gigawatts of generation capacity with annual sales of over 82 gigawatt hours. All of these companies maintain a monopoly franchise within a defined service area. This segment is composed of three integrated utilities, one located in the U.S. (Indianapolis Power & Light Company, or “IPL”), one in Venezuela (EDC) and one in Cameroon (AES SONEL) and electricity distribution businesses located in Argentina (EDELAP, EDEN and EDES), Brazil (AES Eletropaulo and AES Sul), El Salvador (CAESS, CLESA, DEUSEM and EEO), and Ukraine (Kievoblenergo and Rivneenergo). These utilities sell electricity under regulated tariff agreements and each has transmission and distribution capabilities; IPL, EDC, and AES SONEL also have generation plants. Our regulated utilities are subject to extensive regulation at multiple governmental levels relating to ownership, marketing, delivery and pricing of electricity and gas, with a focus on protecting customers. Regulated utilities revenues result primarily from retail electricity sales to customers under regulated tariff or concession agreements, long term electricity sale concessions granted by the appropriate governmental authorities and, to a lesser extent, from contractual agreements of varying lengths and provisions. Our three largest regulated utilities businesses (further described below), which account for approximately 67% of the gigawatt-hours distributed by our regulated utilities, are IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., AES Eletropaulo and EDC.

IPALCO Enterprises Inc. (“IPALCO”) is a holding company and its principal subsidiary is IPL. IPL is engaged in generating, transmitting, distributing and selling electric energy to approximately 460,000 customers in the city of Indianapolis and neighboring areas within the state of Indiana. IPL owns and operates four generation facilities. Two generating facilities are primarily coal-fired plants. The third facility has a combination of units that use coal (base load capacity) and natural gas and/or oil (peaking capacity). The fourth facility is a small peaking station that uses gas-fired combustion turbine technology. IPL’s net generation winter capability is 3,370 MW and net summer capability is 3,252 MW. We acquired IPALCO in March 2001.

AES Eletropaulo has served the São Paulo, Brazil area for over 100 years and with over five million customers, is the largest electricity distribution company in the Americas in terms of customers. AES Eletropaulo’s concession contract with the Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency (“ANEEL”), the government agency responsible for regulating the Brazilian electric industry, entitles AES Eletropaulo to distribute electricity in its service area for 30 years from the date of our acquisition in 1998. AES Eletropaulo’s service territory consists of 24 municipalities in the greater São Paulo metropolitan area and adjacent regions that account for approximately 15% of Brazil’s GDP, covering more than 5 million customers or 44% of the population in the State of São Paulo, Brazil.

EDC was founded in 1895 and is the largest private-sector electric utility in Venezuela serving approximately one million customers. EDC generates, transmits and distributes electricity to customers in metropolitan Caracas and its surrounding area. EDC’s distribution area covers 5,176 square kilometers. EDC has an installed generating capacity of 2,616 MW. EDC commenced construction of a new 200 MW


gas-fired generation plant. This project is expected to start-up in 2007 and will support continued demand growth at this regulated utility.

Electricity sales are made under regulated tariff agreements or under existing regulatory laws and provisions. For utilities located in developing countries, the local business environment also provides for significant opportunities to implement operating improvements that may stimulate growth in earnings and cash flow performance. These growth rates may be greater than those typically achievable in our other business segments and at utilities in more developed countries. Many of these businesses face challenges unique to developing countries including outdated equipment, significant electricity theft-related losses, cultural problems associated with customer safety and non-payment, emerging economies and potentially less stable governments or regulatory regimes.

The regulated utilities face relatively little direct competition due to significant barriers to entry which are present in these markets. In this segment, we primarily face competition in our efforts to acquire businesses. We compete against a number of other participants, some of which have greater financial resources, have been engaged in distribution related businesses for periods longer than we have, and have accumulated more significant portfolios. Relevant competitive factors for Utilities include financial resources, governmental assistance, regulatory restrictions and access to non-recourse financing and regulatory restrictions.financing. In certain locations our utilities face increased competition as a result of changes in laws and regulations which allow wholesale and retail services to be provided on a competitive basis. We can provide no assurance that deregulation will not adversely affect our regulated utilities’the future operations, cash flows and financial condition.condition of our Utilities business. The results of operations of our utilitiesUtilities business are sensitive to changes in economic growth and regulation, (especially in emerging markets), abnormal weather conditions affecting each local market,in the area in which they operate, as well as the success of the operational changes that have been implemented.implemented (especially in emerging markets).

In our Generation business we generate and sell electricity primarily to wholesale customers. Performance drivers for our Generation business include, among other things, plant reliability, fuel costs and fixed-cost management. Growth in this business is largely tied to securing new power purchase agreements, expanding capacity in our existing facilities and building new power plants. Our Generation business includes our interests in 94 power generation plants totaling over 35 gigawatts of capacity installed in 21 countries.

Approximately 68% of the revenues from our Generation business are from plants that operate under power purchase agreements of five years or longer for 75% or more of the output capacity. These long-term contracts reduce the risk associated with volatility in the market price for electricity. We also reduce our exposure to fuel supply risks by entering into long-term fuel supply contracts or through fuel tolling contracts where the customer assumes full responsibility for purchasing and supplying the fuel to the power plant. As a result of these contractual agreements, these facilities have relatively predictable cash flows and earnings. These facilities face most of their competition prior to the execution of a power sales agreement, during the development phase of a project. Our competitors for these contracts include other independent power producers and equipment manufacturers, as well as various utilities and their affiliates. During the


operational phase, we traditionally have faced limited competition due to the long-term nature of the generation contracts. However, since competitive power markets have been introduced and new market participants have been added, we have and will continue to encounter increased competition in attracting new customers and maintaining our current customers as our existing contracts expire.

The balance of our Generation business sells power through competitive markets under short-term contracts or directly in the spot market. As a result the cash flows and earnings associated with these facilities are more sensitive to fluctuations in the market price for electricity, natural gas, coal and other fuels. However, for a number of these facilities, including our plants in New York which include a fleet of low-cost coal fired plants, we have hedged the majority of our exposure to fuel, energy and emissions pricing for the next several years. These facilities compete with numerous other independent power producers, energy marketers and traders, energy merchants, transmission and distribution providers and retail energy suppliers. Competitive factors for these facilities include price, reliability, operational cost and third party credit requirements.

Recent Initiatives

We are always seeking opportunities to grow our businesses and increase the value of our stock, both within our existing Generation and Utilities businesses and in new lines of businesses. When exploring new businesses, we seek opportunities that leverage the skills and experience we have developed in our core business. These core competencies include: financing, constructing and developing large, capital-intensive projects; negotiating and closing complex merger, acquisition, disposition and investment transactions; operating businesses that are heavily-regulated; and conducting business and establishing operations around the world, including in countries where relationships and insight into local rules, regulations, politics and business practices provide us with a competitive advantage.

In our existing businesses we are currently seeing increased demand for power plants sited adjacent to coal resources in markets such as Vietnam, India and Indonesia. Some of the important drivers of performance for us in developing our alternative energy businesses include continued government support through regulation and incentives, continued progress towards liquid and transparent markets, particularly in the area of greenhouse gas emission credit trading, and the successful identification, execution and commercialization of new market opportunities in these nascent markets.

We are also developing an alternative energy business including wind generation, the supply of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”), greenhouse gas emission reduction projects and new energy technologies. In Qatar and Oman we own and operate water desalination plants, and in the Dominican Republic we own and operate a LNG re-gasification terminal, which are ancillary to our existing power businesses.

Our Organization

Our business operations are organized along geographic lines, with regional management teams responsible for the financial results in their respective territories. Each of the four regions, (1) North America, (2) Latin America, (3) Europe, CIS & Africa, which we refer to as “Europe & Africa” and (4) Asia and the Middle East, which we refer to as “Asia”, are led by a Regional President reporting to our Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) who reports to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). Our Alternative Energy business is led by an Executive Vice President, who reports to the CEO. Supporting these businesses is a business excellence group providing expertise in areas such as procurement, engineering and construction, safety, environment, information technology and performance improvement. This group is also led by an Executive Vice President who reports to the COO.

We believe that our organizational structure, including our use of regional management teams, is the most effective method to manage our business. We target geographic regions as primary areas of expansion because our regional management structure provides us with important relationships in key


markets and helps us identify localities with a large and growing need for power and other favorable characteristics for new investment. Regional management also allows for a hands-on approach to operations and business developments, which helps us assess and manage the risks associated with our new investments in each region. As a large organization we believe we have the resources and the ability to capitalize on economies of scale and develop better operating and management practices to increase our overall efficiency and productivity. Finally, our broad geographic footprint reduces political, macroeconomic and other risks associated with conducting business in any particular region.

Subsequent Events

On February 22, 2007, we entered into a definitive agreement with Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., (“PDVSA”), pursuant to which we have agreed to sell to PDVSA all of our shares of EDC. The agreement is dated as of February 15, 2007. Subject to the terms and conditions in the agreement, PDVSA agreed to pay us a purchase price of US$739 million at closing, net of any withholding taxes. In addition, the agreement provided for the payment of a US$120 million dividend in 2007. On March 1, 2007, the shareholders of EDC approved and declared a US$120 million dividend, payable on March 16, 2007, to all shareholders on record as of March 9, 2007. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company is the owner of 82.14% of the outstanding shares of EDC, and therefore, on March 16, 2007, this subsidiary received the equivalent of approximately US$99 million in Bolivares that is currently being held in trust at a U.S. bank until the funds can be converted to U.S. Dollars. Under the terms of the purchase and sale agreement with the Republic of Venezuela, PDVSA has agreed to ensure that the Company’s portion of the dividend is converted by the Venezuelan government’s Foreign Exchange Commission, CADIVI, from Bolivares into U.S. Dollars at the current official exchange rate within 90 days of the dividend payment date. As of the date of this filing, the conversion of the Company’s portion of the dividend from Bolivares to U.S. Dollars has been submitted to CADIVI and is awaiting their approval.

The agreement provided that PDVSA would acquire our EDC common shares in a tender offer. PDVSA commenced and publicly announced the commencement of concurrent tender offers in Venezuela and the United States (the “Offers”), on April 9, 2007. The Offers provided for the purchase of 2,704,445,687 of EDC common shares at a U.S. Dollar equivalent amount of $0.2734 per common share, which is consistent with the price per share implied by the purchase price within the agreement. The closing of the Offers occurred on May 8, 2007, the actual transfer of the shares along with payment of the purchase price occurred on May 16, 2007.

As a result of signing this agreement, we have concluded that a material impairment of our investment in EDC has occurred, which will be recorded in the first quarter ending March 31, 2007. This material impairment represents the net book value of our investment less the estimated purchase price. Management estimates that this pre-tax, non-cash charge will be in the range of $600 to $650 million.

We purchased a controlling interest in EDC in 2000. EDC is the largest private electric utility in Venezuela. It is a provider of power and light to approximately one million customers in the Caracas metropolitan area. EDC also owns and operates five generation plants with a total of 2,616 MW of generation capacity. These facilities collectively represent approximately 14% of the electricity consumed in Venezuela.

For the year ended December 31, 2006, EDC represented 5% of AES’ consolidated revenues and 12% of the Latin America Utilities segment revenues, 5% of AES’ consolidated gross margin and 17% of the Latin America Utilities segment gross margin. In addition, EDC represented 37% of AES’ consolidated net income and 36% of basic earnings per share. Excluding the net after-tax loss impact of $512 million related to the sale of Eletropaulo shares and debt restructuring, EDC represented 12% of AES’ consolidated net income and 12% of basic earnings per share. AES received a dividend of


approximately $101 million from EDC in 2006. EDC’s five generation plants represented approximately 7% of AES’ approximate 35 gigawatts of capacity installed.

Segments

Beginning with this Annual Report on Form 10-K, AES realigned its reportable segments We previously reported under three segments: Regulated Utilities, Contract Generation and Competitive Supply. The Company currently reports seven segments as of December 31, 2006, which include:

·       Latin America Generation;

·       Latin America Utilities;

·       North America Generation;

·       North America Utilities;

·       Europe & Africa Generation;

·       Europe & Africa Utilities;

·       Asia Generation

The additional segment reporting better reflects how AES manages the company internally in terms of decision making and assessing performance. The Company manages its business primarily on a geographic basis in two distinct lines of business—the generation of electricity and the distribution of electricity. These businesses are distinguished by the nature of the customers, operational differences, cost structure, regulatory environment and risk exposure.

Latin America

Our Latin American operations accounted for 58%, 58% and 54% of consolidated revenues in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. AES began operating in Latin America in 1993 when it acquired the CTSN power plant in Argentina. Since that time, AES has expanded its presence in the region and now has operations in eight Latin American countries. These operations include a total of 48 generation plants owned and operated under management agreements with a total generating capacity of 11,217 MW. AES owns and operates 9 utilities, distributing a total of 48,058 GWh, in addition to operating one utility under management agreement, which distributes 1,626 GWh to customers.

Latin American Generation.   Our Generation business in Latin America consists of 47 generation facilities with the capacity to generate 11,217 MW. This capacity includes our new 125 MW Los Vientos diesel-fired peaking facility, which came on line in January, 2007 and serves the largest power market in Chile. AES also has two coal plants under construction in Chile, Guacolda III and Ventanas III with 152 MW and 267 MW generation capacity respectively, and one plant under construction in Panama, the Changuinola hydro plant with 223 MW capacity.

Latin American Utilities.We own 9 Utility businesses, including electricity distribution businesses located in Argentina (EDELAP, EDEN and EDES), Brazil (AES Eletropaulo and AES Sul) and El Salvador (CAESS, CLESA, DEUSEM and EEO). Our tenth Utility business, EDC, was sold in May 2007. We also manage another utility under contract in the Dominican Republic. These businesses sell electricity under regulated tariff agreements and each has transmission and distribution capabilities. AES Eletropaulo, serving the São Paulo, Brazil area for over 100 years, has over five million customers and is the largest electricity distribution company in Brazil in terms of revenues and electricity distributed. Pursuant to its concession contract, AES Eletropaulo is entitled to distribute electricity in its service area until 2028. AES Eletropaulo’s service territory consists of 24 municipalities in the greater São Paulo


metropolitan area and adjacent regions that account for approximately 15% of Brazil’s GDP and 44% of the population in the State of São Paulo, Brazil.

North America

Our North American operations accounted for 23%, 25% and 27% of consolidated revenues in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. AES began operating in North America in 1985, when it developed its first power plant in Deepwater, Texas. Since then AES has grown its North America business and currently owns a total of 27 generation facilities with 13,576 MW generating capacity and one integrated utility, distributing approximately 16,287 GWh of electricity to customers.

North American Generation.   In North America, AES has 23 generation facilities, including seven gas-fired plants, ten coal-fired plants, three petroleum coke-fired plants and three biomass-fired plants, in the United States, Puerto Rico and Mexico.

North American Utilities.   AES has one integrated utility in North America, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (“IPL”), which it owns through IPALCO Enterprises Inc. (“IPALCO”), the parent holding company of IPL. IPL is engaged in generating, transmitting, distributing and selling electric energy to more than 465,000 customers in the city of Indianapolis and neighboring areas within the state of Indiana. IPL also owns and operates four generation facilities. Two generating facilities are primarily coal-fired plants. The third facility has a combination of units that use coal (base load capacity) and natural gas and/or oil (peaking capacity). The fourth facility is a small peaking station that uses gas-fired combustion turbine technology. IPL’s gross generation capability is 3,599 MW.

Europe & Africa

Our operations in Europe & Africa accounted for 12%, 12% and 12% of our consolidated revenues in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. AES began operations in Europe & Africa in 1992, when we acquired the AES Kilroot power plant in Northern Ireland. Since that time, AES has grown in this region and now has a presence in nine countries. AES’s operations in the region now include a total of 24 generation plants owned or operated under management agreements with a total of 11,431 MW generation capacity. AES owns and operates three utilities, distributing a total of 8,960 GWh, in addition to operating 2 utilities under management agreement in the region, which distribute a total of 2,096 GWh.

Europe & Africa Generation.   We own 11 generation facilities in Europe & Africa, and operate two additional generation facilities under management contract in Kazakhstan. These generation facilities have the capacity to generate 10,504 MW. In 2006, we began commercial operation of AES Cartagena, our first power plant in Spain with 1,200 MW capacity. AES Maritza East 1 is a 670 MW lignite-fired power plant currently under construction in Bulgaria.

Europe & Africa Utilities.   We own three Utility businesses in Europe & Africa, including an integrated utility in Cameroon (AES SONEL) and two distribution businesses in Ukraine (Kievoblenergo and Rivneenergo). AES acquired a 56% interest in AES SONEL in 2001. AES SONEL generates, transmits and distributes electricity to approximately 538,000 customers. AES SONEL has an installed generating capacity of 927 MW, and a small plant under construction. Our two distribution businesses in Ukraine serve over 1.2 million customers, while the two distribution businesses we operate under management agreements in Kazakhstan together serve over 554,000 customers.

Asia

Our Asian operations accounted for 7%, 6% and 6% of consolidated revenues in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. AES began operations in Asia in 1994 when we acquired the Cili power plant in China. Since


that time AES’s Generation business has expanded and it now operates 13 power plants with a total capacity of 5,369 MW in six countries. AES only operates generation facilities in Asia.

Asia Generation.   AES has 13 generation facilities with the capacity to generate 5,369 MW. Over half of our facilities and capacity are located in China, where AES joined with Chinese partners to build Yangcheng, the first “coal-by-wire” power plant with the capacity of 2100 MW. In 2000, AES was selected by the Sultanate of Oman to build, own and operate a 456 MW and 20 MIGD combined power and desalinated water facility, which achieved commercial operations in 2003. In 2001, AES was awarded the right to build, own and operate for 25 years a 756 MW and 40 MIGD combined power and desalinated water facility, the first such facility to be awarded to the private sector in Qatar. This facility commenced commercial operations in 2004. AES also owns and operates two oil-fired facilities in Pakistan (Lal Pir and Pak Gen), which have been in operations for the last nine years. In India, AES acquired a 420 MW coal-fired power plant (OPGC) in 1998. In Sri Lanka, AES owns a 168 MW diesel-fired power plant that began commercial operations in 2003. AES Amman East is a 370 MW combined-cycle gas power plant under construction in Jordan.

Corporate and Other

Corporate and other expenses include general and administrative expenses related to corporate staff functions and initiatives—primarily executive management, finance, legal, human resources, information systems and certain development costs which are not allocable to our business segments; interest income and interest expense; and intercompany charges such as management fees and self insurance premiums which are fully eliminated in consolidation.

In addition, Corporate and Other also includes net operating results of our Alternative Energy business which is not material to our presentation of operating segments. We own and operate 298 MW of wind generation capacity and operate an additional 298 MW capacity through operating and management or O&M agreements. We also have ownership interests in development-stage companies in Scotland, France and Bulgaria. In 2006, we began construction of the 233 MW Buffalo Gap 2 wind farm in Texas.

19




The table below presents information about our consolidated operations and long-lived assets, by country, for years ended December 31, 2006 through December 31, 2004 and as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Revenues are recorded in the country in which they are earned and assets are recorded in the country in which they are located.

 

 

Revenues

 

Property, Plant &
Equipment, net

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

United States

 

$

2,544

 

$

2,335

 

$

2,213

 

$

5,890

 

$

5,609

 

Non-U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brazil

 

4,161

 

3,823

 

2,925

 

4,567

 

4,130

 

Argentina

 

542

 

438

 

320

 

412

 

418

 

Chile

 

595

 

542

 

436

 

812

 

796

 

Venezuela

 

652

 

635

 

619

 

1,859

 

1,861

 

Dominican Republic

 

357

 

231

 

168

 

653

 

476

 

El Salvador

 

437

 

377

 

356

 

241

 

225

 

Pakistan

 

373

 

219

 

210

 

272

 

288

 

United Kingdom

 

222

 

208

 

215

 

303

 

282

 

Cameroon

 

302

 

288

 

272

 

407

 

354

 

Mexico

 

185

 

226

 

186

 

188

 

195

 

Puerto Rico

 

234

 

213

 

188

 

626

 

643

 

Hungary

 

304

 

230

 

192

 

225

 

209

 

Ukraine

 

269

 

217

 

190

 

106

 

97

 

Qatar

 

169

 

165

 

129

 

578

 

603

 

Colombia

 

184

 

182

 

132

 

398

 

407

 

Panama

 

144

 

134

 

117

 

450

 

454

 

Oman

 

114

 

113

 

110

 

337

 

346

 

Kazakhstan

 

215

 

158

 

137

 

175

 

150

 

Other Non-U.S.

 

296

 

287

 

277

 

575

 

490

 

Total Non-U.S.

 

$

9,755

 

$

8,686

 

$

7,179

 

$

13,184

 

$

12,424

 

Total

 

$

12,299

 

$

11,021

 

$

9,392

 

$

19,074

 

$

18,033

 

Facilities

The following tables present information with respect to the facilities in each of our three business segments.segments as of December 31, 2006. The amounts under “Gross Gross Megawatt (“MW”) and “Approximate Gigawatt Hours” represent the gross amounts for each facility without regard to our percentage of ownership interest in the facility.

9




Contract Generation
(As of December 31, 2005)

Generation Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Dominant Fuel

 

Year of
Acquisition or
Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Gross MW

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent
Rounded)

 

North America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Altamont

 

USA

 

Wind

 

 

2005

 

 

 

24

 

 

 

100

 

 

Altech III

 

USA

 

Wind

 

 

2005

 

 

 

25

 

 

 

100

 

 

Beaver Valley

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1985

 

 

 

125

 

 

 

100

 

 

Central Valley—Delano

 

USA

 

Biomass

 

 

2001

 

 

 

57

 

 

 

100

 

 

Central Valley—Mendota

 

USA

 

Biomass

 

 

2001

 

 

 

25

 

 

 

100

 

 

Condon

 

USA

 

Wind

 

 

2005

 

 

 

25

 

 

 

38

 

 

Hawaii

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1992

 

 

 

203

 

 

 

100

 

 

Hemphill

 

USA

 

Biomass

 

 

2001

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

67

 

 

Ironwood

 

USA

 

Gas

 

 

2001

 

 

 

710

 

 

 

100

 

 

Kingston(1)

 

Canada

 

Gas

 

 

1997

 

 

 

110

 

 

 

50

 

 

Mérida III

 

Mexico

 

Gas

 

 

2000

 

 

 

484

 

 

 

55

 

 

Placerita

 

USA

 

Gas

 

 

1989

 

 

 

115

 

 

 

100

 

 

Puerto Rico

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

2002

 

 

 

454

 

 

 

100

 

 

Red Oak

 

USA

 

Gas

 

 

2002

 

 

 

832

 

 

 

100

 

 

Shady Point

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1991

 

 

 

320

 

 

 

100

 

 

Southland—Alamitos

 

USA

 

Gas

 

 

1998

 

 

 

2,047

 

 

 

100

 

 

Southland—Huntington Beach

 

USA

 

Gas

 

 

1998

 

 

 

904

 

 

 

100

 

 

Southland—Redondo Beach

 

USA

 

Gas

 

 

1998

 

 

 

1,376

 

 

 

100

 

 

Thames

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1990

 

 

 

208

 

 

 

100

 

 

Warrior Run

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

2000

 

 

 

205

 

 

 

100

 

 

Wind facilities operated under management or operations and maintenance agreements

 

USA

 

Wind

 

 

2005

 

 

 

377

 

 

 

0

 

 

Latin America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andres

 

Dom. Republic

 

Gas

 

 

2003

 

 

 

319

 

 

 

100

 

 

Gener—Centrogener (7 plants)(2)

 

Chile

 

Hydro/Coal/Oil

 

 

2000

 

 

 

682

 

 

 

99

 

 

Gener—Electrica de Santiago (2 plants)(3)

 

Chile

 

Gas/Diesel

 

 

2000

 

 

 

479

 

 

 

89

 

 

Gener—Energía Verde (3 plants)(4) 

 

Chile

 

Biomass/Diesel

 

 

2000

 

 

 

42

 

 

 

99

 

 

Gener—Guacolda

 

Chile

 

Coal

 

 

2000

 

 

 

304

 

 

 

49

 

 

Gener—Norgener

 

Chile

 

Coal/Pet Coke

 

 

2000

 

 

 

277

 

 

 

99

 

 

Gener—TermoAndes

 

Argentina

 

Gas

 

 

2000

 

 

 

643

 

 

 

99

 

 

Itabo (5 plants)(5)

 

Dom. Republic

 

Coal/Oil

 

 

2000

 

 

 

586

 

 

 

25

 

 

Los Mina

 

Dom. Republic

 

Gas

 

 

2000

 

 

 

236

 

 

 

100

 

 

Tietê (10 plants)(6)(7)

 

Brazil

 

Hydro

 

 

1999

 

 

 

2,650

 

 

 

24

 

 

Uruguaiana(7)

 

Brazil

 

Gas

 

 

2000

 

 

 

639

 

 

 

46

 

 

 


Contract Generation—continued
Segment—Latin America
(As of December 31, 2005)Generation

Generation Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Dominant Fuel

 

Year of
Acquisition or
Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Gross MW

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent
Rounded)

 

Europe/Middle East/Africa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barka

 

Oman

 

Gas

 

 

2003

 

 

 

456

 

 

 

35

 

 

Bohemia

 

Czech. Rep.

 

Coal/Biomass

 

 

2001

 

 

 

50

 

 

 

100

 

 

Borsod

 

Hungary

 

Biomass/Coal/Gas

 

 

1996

 

 

 

96

 

 

 

100

 

 

Ebute

 

Nigeria

 

Gas

 

 

2001

 

 

 

305

 

 

 

95

 

 

Elsta

 

Netherlands

 

Gas

 

 

1998

 

 

 

630

 

 

 

50

 

 

Kilroot

 

N. Ireland, U.K.

 

Coal/Oil

 

 

1992

 

 

 

520

 

 

 

97

 

 

Lal Pir

 

Pakistan

 

Oil

 

 

1997

 

 

 

362

 

 

 

55

 

 

Pak Gen

 

Pakistan

 

Oil

 

 

1998

 

 

 

365

 

 

 

55

 

 

Ras Laffan

 

Qatar

 

Gas

 

 

2004

 

 

 

756

 

 

 

55

 

 

Tisza II

 

Hungary

 

Oil/Gas

 

 

1996

 

 

 

900

 

 

 

100

 

 

Asia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aixi

 

China

 

Coal

 

 

1998

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

71

 

 

Chengdu

 

China

 

Gas

 

 

1997

 

 

 

50

 

 

 

35

 

 

Cili

 

China

 

Hydro

 

 

1994

 

 

 

26

 

 

 

51

 

 

Hefei

 

China

 

Oil

 

 

1997

 

 

 

115

 

 

 

70

 

 

Jiaozuo

 

China

 

Coal

 

 

1997

 

 

 

250

 

 

 

70

 

 

Kelanitissa

 

Sri Lanka

 

Diesel

 

 

2003

 

 

 

168

 

 

 

90

 

 

OPGC

 

India

 

Coal

 

 

1998

 

 

 

420

 

 

 

49

 

 

Wuhu

 

China

 

Coal

 

 

1996

 

 

 

250

 

 

 

25

 

 

Yangcheng

 

China

 

Coal

 

 

2001

 

 

 

2,100

 

 

 

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

23,369

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under Construction

Generation Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Dominant Fuel

 

Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Gross MW

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent
Rounded)

 

North America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buffalo Gap

 

 

USA

 

 

 

Wind

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

121

 

 

 

100

 

 

Latin America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Los Vientos

 

 

Chile

 

 

 

Diesel

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

99

 

 

Europe/Middle East/Africa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cartagena

 

 

Spain

 

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

1,200

 

 

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acquired or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Began

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

Alicura

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

1,050

 

99%

 

2000

Central Dique

 

Argentina

 

Gas / Diesel

 

68

 

51%

 

1998

Gener - TermoAndes

 

Argentina

 

Gas

 

643

 

91%

 

2000

Paraná-GT

 

Argentina

 

Gas

 

845

 

100%

 

2001

Quebrada de Ullum(1)

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

45

 

 

2004

Rio Juramento - Cabra Corral

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

102

 

98%

 

1995

Rio Juramento - El Tunal

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

10

 

98%

 

1995

San Juan - Sarmiento

 

Argentina

 

Gas

 

33

 

98%

 

1996

San Juan - Ullum

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

45

 

98%

 

1996

San Nicolás

 

Argentina

 

Coal / Gas / Oil

 

675

 

99%

 

1993

Tietê(2)

 

Brazil

 

Hydro

 

2,650

 

24%

 

1999

Uruguaiana

 

Brazil

 

Gas

 

639

 

46%

 

2000

Gener - Electrica de Santiago(3)

 

Chile

 

Gas / Oil

 

479

 

82%

 

2000

Gener - Energía Verde(4)

 

Chile

 

Biomass / Diesel

 

42

 

91%

 

2000

Gener - Gener(5)

 

Chile

 

Hydro / Coal / Oil

 

807

 

91%

 

2000

Gener - Guacolda

 

Chile

 

Coal

 

304

 

46%

 

2000

Gener - Norgener

 

Chile

 

Coal / Pet Coke

 

277

 

91%

 

2000

Chivor

 

Colombia

 

Hydro

 

1,000

 

91%

 

2000

Andres

 

Dominican Republic

 

Gas

 

319

 

100%

 

2003

Itabo(6)

 

Dominican Republic

 

Coal / Oil

 

472

 

48%

 

2000

Los Mina

 

Dominican Republic

 

Gas

 

236

 

100%

 

1997

Bayano

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

260

 

49%

 

1999

Chiriqui - Esti

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

120

 

49%

 

2003

Chirqui - La Estrella

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

45

 

49%

 

1999

Chirqui - Los Valles

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

51

 

49%

 

1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

11,217

 

 

 

 


(1)             As of March 2006, AES sold its directoperates these facilities through management or operations and maintenance agreements and owns no equity interest in Kingston Cogeneration Limited Partnership, a 110 MW cogeneration power plant.these businesses

(2)             Gener-Centrogener plants: Ventanas, Laguna Verde, Laguna Verde Turbogas, Alfalfal, Maitenas, Queltehues and Volcán.

(3)          Gener-Eletrica de Santiago plants: Nueva Renca and Renca.

(4)          Gener-Energia Verde Plants: Constitución, Laja and San Francisco de Mostazal.

(5)          Itabo plants: Itabo, Santo Domingo, Timbeque, Los Mina and Higuamo.

(6)Tietê plants: Água Vermelha, Bariri, Barra Bonita, Caconde, Euclides da Cunha, Ibitinga, Limoeiro, Mogi-GuaçMog-Guaçu, Nova Avanhandava and Promissão.o

(7)(3)             As a result of the restructuring between some of our Brazilian holding companiesGener - Electrica de Santiago plants: Nueva Renca and BNDES which was completedRenca

(4)Gener - Energia Verde Plants: Constitución, Laja and San Francisco de Mostazal

(5)Gener - Gener plants: Ventanas, Laguna Verde, Laguna Verde Turbogas, Alfalfal, Maitenas, Queltehues, Volcán and Los Vientos. Los Vientos started full commercial operations in January, 2004, we have a 46% ownership interest in AES Uruguaiana2007

(6)Itabo plants: Itabo, Santo Domingo, Timbegue, Los Mina and a 24% interest in AES Tietê. AES retains control of these entities through  the holding company, Brasiliana Energia, S.A.Higuamo

11




Generation under construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Commercial

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

Guacolda III

 

Chile

 

Coal

 

152

 

46%

 

2009

Ventanas III

 

Chile

 

Coal

 

267

 

91%

 

2010

Changuinola

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

223

 

83%

 

2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

642

 

 

 

 


Competitive Supply
Segment—Latin America Utilities
(As of December 31, 2005)

Generation Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Dominant Fuel

 

Year of
Acquisition or
Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Gross MW

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent
Rounded)

 

North America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cayuga

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1999

 

 

 

306

 

 

 

100

 

 

Deepwater

 

USA

 

Pet Coke

 

 

1986

 

 

 

160

 

 

 

100

 

 

Greenidge

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1999

 

 

 

161

 

 

 

100

 

 

Somerset

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1999

 

 

 

675

 

 

 

100

 

 

Westover

 

USA

 

Coal

 

 

1999

 

 

 

126

 

 

 

100

 

 

Latin America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alicura

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

 

2000

 

 

 

1,040

 

 

 

96

 

 

Central Dique

 

Argentina

 

Gas/Diesel

 

 

1998

 

 

 

68

 

 

 

51

 

 

Paraná-GT

 

Argentina

 

Gas

 

 

2001

 

 

 

845

 

 

 

100

 

 

Quebrada de Ullum(1)

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

 

2004

 

 

 

45

 

 

 

0

 

 

Rio Juramento—Cabra Corral

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

 

1995

 

 

 

102

 

 

 

98

 

 

Rio Juramento—El Tunal

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

 

1995

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

98

 

 

San Juan—Sarmiento

 

Argentina

 

Gas

 

 

1996

 

 

 

33

 

 

 

98

 

 

San Juan—Ullum

 

Argentina

 

Hydro

 

 

1996

 

 

 

45

 

 

 

98

 

 

San Nicolás

 

Argentina

 

Coal/Gas/Oil

 

 

1993

 

 

 

650

 

 

 

96

 

 

Bayano

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

 

1999

 

 

 

260

 

 

 

49

 

 

Chiriqui—Esti

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

 

2003

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

49

 

 

Chiriqui—La Estrella

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

 

1999

 

 

 

42

 

 

 

49

 

 

Chiriqui—Los Valles

 

Panama

 

Hydro

 

 

1999

 

 

 

48

 

 

 

49

 

 

Chivor

 

Colombia

 

Hydro

 

 

2000

 

 

 

1,000

 

 

 

99

 

 

Panama

 

Panama

 

Oil

 

 

1999

 

 

 

42

 

 

 

49

 

 

Europe/Middle East/Africa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Queens

 

England, U.K.

 

Oil

 

 

1996

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

100

 

 

Tiszapalkonya

 

Hungary

 

Biomass/Coal

 

 

1996

 

 

 

116

 

 

 

100

 

 

Asia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ekibastuz(2)

 

Kazakhstan

 

Coal

 

 

1996

 

 

 

4,000

 

 

 

100

 

 

Shulbinsk(3)

 

Kazakhstan

 

Hydro

 

 

1997

 

 

 

702

 

 

 

0

 

 

Sogrinsk CHP

 

Kazakhstan

 

Coal

 

 

1997

 

 

 

301

 

 

 

100

 

 

Ust-Kamenogorsk(3)

 

Kazakhstan

 

Hydro

 

 

1997

 

 

 

331

 

 

 

0

 

 

Ust-Kamenogorsk CHP

 

Kazakhstan

 

Coal

 

 

1997

 

 

 

1,354

 

 

 

100

 

 

Ust-Kamenogorsk Heat Nets(1)

 

Kazakhstan

 

Coal

 

 

1998

 

 

 

270

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

12,992

 

 

 

 

 

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross MW

 

AES Equity Interest
(Rounded)

 

Year
Acquired or
Began
Operation

 

EDC(1)(2)

 

Venezuela

 

Oil/Gas

 

 

2,616

 

 

 

82

%

 

 

2000

 

 


(1)             Although our equity interest in these businesses is zero, we operate these businesses through a management agreement.

(2)          AES fully owns and operates Maikuben West coal mine in Kazakhstan, which supplies coal to this facility.

(3)          Although our equity interest in these businesses is zero, we operate these businesses through a concession agreement.


Regulated Utilities
(As of December 31, 2005)

Generation Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Dominant Fuel

 

Year of
Acquisition or
Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Gross MW

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent
Rounded)

 

North America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPL (4 plants)(1)

 

USA

 

Coal/Gas/Oil

 

 

2001

 

 

 

3,370

 

 

 

100

 

 

Latin America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDC (5 plants)(2)

 

Venezuela

 

Oil/Gas

 

 

2000

 

 

 

2,616

 

 

 

86

 

 

Europe/Africa/Middle East

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SONEL (12 plants)(3)

 

Cameroon

 

Hydro/Diesel/

 

 

2001

 

 

 

1,014

 

 

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heavy Fuel Oil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7,000

 

 

 

 

 

 


(1)          IPL plants: Eagle Valley, Georgetown, Harding Street and Petersburg.

(2)EDC plants: Amplicacion Tacoa, Tacoa, Arrecifes, Oscar Augusto Machado and Genevapca.Genevapca

(3)(2)             AES sold its interest in EDC to the PDVSA in May 2007

Distribution

 

 

 

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customers Served as

 

Gigawatt Hours

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Year

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

of 12/31/2006

 

Sold in 2006

 

(Rounded)

 

Acquired

Edelap

 

Argentina

 

 

302,845

 

 

 

2,450

 

 

 

90

%

 

1998

Eden

 

Argentina

 

 

306,885

 

 

 

2,273

 

 

 

90

%

 

1997

Edes

 

Argentina

 

 

156,908

 

 

 

751

 

 

 

90

%

 

1997

Eletropaulo

 

Brazil

 

 

5,468,727

 

 

 

31,656

 

 

 

16

%

 

1998

Sul

 

Brazil

 

 

1,071,860

 

 

 

7,545

 

 

 

100

%

 

1997

CAESS

 

El Salvador

 

 

491,631

 

 

 

2,091

 

 

 

75

%

 

2000

CLESA

 

El Salvador

 

 

281,473

 

 

 

764

 

 

 

64

%

 

1998

DEUSEM

 

El Salvador

 

 

53,000

 

 

 

95

 

 

 

74

%

 

2000

EEO

 

El Salvador

 

 

207,441

 

 

 

433

 

 

 

89

%

 

2000

EDC(1)

 

Venezuela

 

 

1,103,149

 

 

 

10,523

 

 

 

82

%

 

2000

 

 

 

 

 

9,443,919

 

 

 

58,581

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


(1)AES sold its interest in EDC to the PDVSA in May 2007

Distribution businesses under AES management

 

 

 

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customers Served as

 

Gigawatt Hours

 

AES Equity Interest

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

of 12/31/2006

 

Sold in 2006

 

(Rounded)

EDE Este(1)

 

Dominican Republic

 

330,187

 

1,626

 


(1)AES operates these facilities through management agreements and owns no equity interest in these businesses


Segment—North America Generation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acquired or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Began

 

Business(1)

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

Mérida III

 

Mexico

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

484

 

 

 

55%

 

 

 

2000

 

 

Termoelectrica del Golfo (TEG)(2)

 

Mexico

 

 

Pet Coke

 

 

 

230

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2007

 

 

Termoelectrica del Peñoles (TEP)(2)

 

Mexico

 

 

Pet Coke

 

 

 

230

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2007

 

 

Central Valley - Delano

 

USA - CA

 

 

Biomass

 

 

 

57

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

Central Valley - Mendota

 

USA - CA

 

 

Biomass

 

 

 

28

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

Placerita

 

USA - CA

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1989

 

 

Southland - Alamitos

 

USA - CA

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

2,047

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1998

 

 

Southland - Huntington Beach

 

USA - CA

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

904

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1998

 

 

Southland - Redondo Beach

 

USA - CA

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

1,376

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1998

 

 

Thames

 

USA - CT

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

208

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1990

 

 

Hawaii

 

USA - HI

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

203

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1992

 

 

Warrior Run

 

USA - MD

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

205

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2000

 

 

Hemphill

 

USA - NH

 

 

Biomass

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

67%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

Red Oak

 

USA - NJ

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

832

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2002

 

 

Cayuga

 

USA - NY

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

306

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1999

 

 

Greenidge

 

USA - NY

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

161

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1999

 

 

Somerset

 

USA - NY

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

675

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1999

 

 

Westover

 

USA - NY

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

126

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1999

 

 

Shady Point

 

USA - OK

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

320

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1991

 

 

Beaver Valley

 

USA - PA

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

125

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1985

 

 

Ironwood

 

USA - PA

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

710

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

Puerto Rico

 

USA - PR

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

454

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2002

 

 

Deepwater

 

USA - TX

 

 

Pet Coke

 

 

 

160

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1986

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9,977

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


(1)AES additionally owns and operates the Coal Creek Minerals coal mine in Oklahoma, USA

(2)Acquired February, 2007

Segment—North America Utilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acquired or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Began

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

IPL(1)

 

USA - IN

 

 

Coal/Gas/Oil

 

 

 

3,599

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2001

 

 


(1)IPL plants: Eagle Valley, Georgetown, Harding Street and Petersburg

Distribution

 

 

 

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customers Served as

 

Gigawatt Hours

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Year

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

of 12/31/2006

 

Sold in 2006

 

(Rounded)

 

Acquired

 

IPL

 

USA - IN

 

 

468,867

 

 

 

16,287

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

23




Segment—Europe & Africa Generation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acquired or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Began

 

Business(1)

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

Bohemia

 

Czech Republic

 

 

Coal/Biomass

 

 

 

50

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

Borsod

 

Hungary

 

 

Biomass/Coal

 

 

 

96

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1996

 

 

Tisza II

 

Hungary

 

 

Gas/Oil

 

 

 

900

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1996

 

 

Tiszapalkonya

 

Hungary

 

 

Biomass/Coal

 

 

 

116

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1996

 

 

Ekibastuz

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

4,000

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1996

 

 

Shulbinsk HPP(2)

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

Hydro

 

 

 

702

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Sogrinsk CHP

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

301

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Ust - Kamenogorsk HPP(2)

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

Hydro

 

 

 

331

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Ust - Kamenogorsk CHP

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

1,354

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Elsta

 

Netherlands

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

630

 

 

 

50%

 

 

 

1998

 

 

Ebute

 

Nigeria

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

304

 

 

 

95%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

Cartagena

 

Spain

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

1,200

 

 

 

71%

 

 

 

2006

 

 

Kilroot

 

United Kingdom

 

 

Coal/Oil

 

 

 

520

 

 

 

97%

 

 

 

1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10,504

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


(1)AES additionally owns and operates the Maikuben West coal mine in Kazakhstan, supplying coal to AES businesses and third parties

(2)AES operates these facilities through management or operations and maintenance agreements and owns no equity interest in these businesses

Generation under construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Commercial

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

Maritza East I

 

Bulgaria

 

 

Lignite

 

 

 

670

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2009

 

 

Segment—Europe & Africa Utilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acquired

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

or Began

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

SONEL(1)

 

Cameroon

 

 

Hydro/Diesel/Heavy
Fuel Oil

 

 

 

927

 

 

 

56

%

 

 

2001

 

 


(1)SONEL plants: Bafoussam, Bassa, Djamboutou, Edéa, Song Loulou,Lagdo, Logbaba I, Limbé, Bassa, Bafoussam, Logbaba, Logbaba II,Mefou, Oyomabang I, Oyomabang II Mefou, Lagdo and Djamboutou.Song Loulou, and other small remote network units

Generation under constructionUnder Construction

Generation Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Dominant Fuel

 

Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Gross MW

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent,
Rounded)

 

Latin America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDC (La Raisa plant)

 

Venezuela

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

2007

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

86

 

 

Distribution Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Approx. Number
of Customers
Served

 

Year of
Acquisition or
Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Approx.
Gigawatt
Hours

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent,
Rounded)

 

North America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPL

 

USA

 

 

460,000

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

16,278

 

 

 

100

 

 

Latin America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAESS

 

El Salvador

 

 

487,000

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

1,980

 

 

 

75

 

 

CLESA

 

El Salvador

 

 

272,000

 

 

 

1998

 

 

 

726

 

 

 

64

 

 

DEUSEM

 

El Salvador

 

 

53,000

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

95

 

 

 

74

 

 

EDE Este(1)

 

Dom. Republic

 

 

331,000

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

2,136

 

 

 

0

 

 

EDC

 

Venezuela

 

 

1,030,000

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

10,523

 

 

 

86

 

 

Edelap

 

Argentina

 

 

296,000

 

 

 

1998

 

 

 

2,363

 

 

 

90

 

 

Eden

 

Argentina

 

 

300,000

 

 

 

1997

 

 

 

2,107

 

 

 

90

 

 

Edes

 

Argentina

 

 

154,000

 

 

 

1997

 

 

 

721

 

 

 

90

 

 

EEO

 

El Salvador

 

 

200,000

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

408

 

 

 

89

 

 

Eletropaulo(2)

 

Brazil

 

 

5,298,000

 

 

 

1998

 

 

 

31,634

 

 

 

34

 

 

Sul(3)

 

Brazil

 

 

1,046,000

 

 

 

1997

 

 

 

6,922

 

 

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Commercial

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

SONEL(1)

 

Cameroon

 

 

Heavy Fuel Oil

 

 

 

13

 

 

 

56

%

 

 

2007

 

 

 


Regulated Utilities—continued
Distribution
(As of December 31, 2005)

Distribution Facilities

 

 

 

Geographic
Location

 

Approx.
Number of
Customers
Served

 

Year of
Acquisition or
Commencement
of Commercial
Operations

 

Approx.
Gigawatt
Hours

 

AES Equity
Interest
(Percent,
Rounded)

 

Europe/Middle East/Africa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kievoblenergo

 

Ukraine

 

 

800,000

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

3,332

 

 

 

89

 

 

Rivneenergo

 

Ukraine

 

 

388,000

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

1,895

 

 

 

80

 

 

SONEL

 

Cameroon

 

 

528,000

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

3,258

 

 

 

56

 

 

Asia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eastern Kazakhstan REC(1)

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

282,000

 

 

 

1999

 

 

 

1,998

 

 

 

0

 

 

Semipalatinsk REC(1)

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

180,000

 

 

 

1999

 

 

 

834

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

 

87,210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customers Served as

 

Gigawatt Hours

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Year

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

of 12/31/2006

 

Sold in 2006

 

(Rounded)

 

Acquired

 

SONEL

 

Cameroon

 

 

538,257

 

 

 

3,374

 

 

 

56

%

 

 

2001

 

 

Kievoblenergo

 

Ukraine

 

 

833,005

 

 

 

3,639

 

 

 

89

%

 

 

2001

 

 

Rivneenergo

 

Ukraine

 

 

402,541

 

 

 

1,947

 

 

 

81

%

 

 

2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,773,803

 

 

 

8,960

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Distribution businesses under AES management

 

 

 

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of

 

Approximate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customers Served as

 

Gigawatt Hours

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

of 12/31/2006

 

Sold in 2006

 

(Percent, Rounded)

 

Eastern Kazakhstan REC(1)(2)

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

460,087

 

 

 

2,096

 

 

 

 

 

Ust-Kamenogorsk Heat Nets(1)(3)

 

Kazakhstan

 

 

94,748

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

554,835

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


(1)             Although ourAES operates these facilities through management agreements and owns no equity interest in these businesses is zero, we operate these businesses through a management agreement. AES previously had a controlling interest in EDE Este from 1999 to 2004.

(2)             As a result of the restructuring between some of our Brazilian holding companiesEastern Kazakhstan REC sells power to ShygysEnergo Trade company, an AES subsidiary in Kazakhstan that distributes electricity to customers in Ust-Kamenogorsk and BNDES which was completed in January 2004, our ownership interest in Eletropaulo is 34%. AES retains control through the holding company, Brasiliana Energia, S.A.Semipalatinsk areas

(3)             AsUst-Kamenogorsk Heat Nets provide transmission, and distribution of heat, with a resulttotal heat generating capacity of 224 Gcal

Segment—Asia Generation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acquired or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Began

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

Aixi

 

China

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

71%

 

 

 

1998

 

 

Chengdu

 

China

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

50

 

 

 

35%

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Cili

 

China

 

 

Hydro

 

 

 

26

 

 

 

51%

 

 

 

1994

 

 

Hefei

 

China

 

 

Oil

 

 

 

115

 

 

 

70%

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Jiaozuo

 

China

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

250

 

 

 

70%

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Wuhu

 

China

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

250

 

 

 

25%

 

 

 

1996

 

 

Yangcheng

 

China

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

2,100

 

 

 

25%

 

 

 

2001

 

 

OPGC

 

India

 

 

Coal

 

 

 

420

 

 

 

49%

 

 

 

1998

 

 

Barka

 

Oman

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

456

 

 

 

35%

 

 

 

2003

 

 

Lal Pir

 

Pakistan

 

 

Oil

 

 

 

362

 

 

 

55%

 

 

 

1997

 

 

Pak Gen

 

Pakistan

 

 

Oil

 

 

 

365

 

 

 

55%

 

 

 

1998

 

 

Ras Laffan

 

Qatar

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

756

 

 

 

55%

 

 

 

2004

 

 

Kelanitissa

 

Sri Lanka

 

 

Diesel

 

 

 

168

 

 

 

90%

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5,369

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generation under construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Commercial

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

Amman East(1)

 

Jordan

 

 

Gas

 

 

 

370

 

 

 

60

%

 

 

2009

 

 


(1)Construction of the restructuring of certain of our Brazilian holding companiesAmman East power plant commenced in May, 2007


Alternative Energy (included in Corporate and BNDES that was completed in January 2004, AES Sul may be contributed at the option of BNDES to Brasiliana Energia, S.A. after AES Sul has completed its own debt restructuring.Other)

Growth OpportunitiesGeneration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Year

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Acquired or

 

Altamont

 

USA - CA

 

 

Wind

 

 

 

43

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2005

 

 

Palm Springs

 

USA - CA

 

 

Wind

 

 

 

30

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2006

 

 

Tehachapi

 

USA - CA

 

 

Wind

 

 

 

54

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2006

 

 

Condon(1)

 

USA - OR

 

 

Wind

 

 

 

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005

 

 

Buffalo Gap(1)

 

USA - TX

 

 

Wind

 

 

 

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

298

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


We continuously consider options to expand our business. In addition to expanding our two primary lines of business, power generation(1)AES owns Condon and distribution, we believe we can leverage the skillsBuffalo Gap wind facilities together with third party equity investors with variable equity ownership interests. It also has ownership interests in development-stage companies in Scotland, France and experience necessary to be successfulBulgaria.

Alternative Energy businesses under AES management

AES Equity Interest

Business

Location

Fuel

Gross M W

(Percent, Rounded)

Wind generation facilities(1)

USA

Wind

298


(1)AES operates these facilities through management or O&M agreements and owns no equity interest in our primarythese businesses into other

Alternative Energy businesses that have similar characteristics. We believe these transferable skills include our knowledge and skill in dealing with complex deal structuring and project financing for large capital intensive projects and dynamic local political and regulatory environments. We believe we have an additional advantage in situations where we can leverage our existing businesses. Our existing presence in certain countries can provide the relationships and insight into local rules, regulations, politics and business practices needed to be successful in both power and related non-power sectors. In addition, we seek to expand our businesses into other forms of energy production and delivery. This includes alternative energy businesses such as wind generation, the supply of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) to certain targeted North American markets, the production of greenhouse gas reduction activities, and new energy technology. For example, we have already begun to implement this strategy in Kazakhstan, where we own and operate a coal mine, the Middle East, where we own and operate water desalination plants, and the Dominican Republic, where we own and operate an LNG regasification terminal, each ancillary to our existing power businesses.under construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AES Equity Interest

 

Commercial

 

Business

 

 

 

Location

 

Fuel

 

Gross M W

 

(Rounded)

 

Operation

 

Buffalo Gap II

 

USA - TX

 

 

Wind

 

 

 

233

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

2007

 

 

The Company continues to maintain an active development pipeline of potential growth investments. It continues to devote significant resources at both the corporate and business level in support of business development opportunities, which may include expansion at existing locations, new greenfield investments, privatization of government assets, and mergers and acquisitions. It is this funding of development costs in support of new projects and privatization opportunities which could lead to significant new investments in 2006.

14




Customers

We sell to a wide variety of customers. No individual customer accounted for 10% or more of our 20052006 total revenues.

Employees

As of December 31, 2005,2006, we employed approximately 30,00032,000 people.

How to Contact AES and Sources of Other Information

Our principal offices are located at 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Our telephone number is (703) 522-1315. Our webwebsite address is http://www.aes.com.www.aes.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to such reports filed pursuant to section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are posted on our website at http://www.aes.com.website. After the reports are filed or furnished with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), they are available from the Companyus free of charge. Material contained on our website is not part of and is not incorporated by reference in this annual reportAnnual Report on Form 10-K.

AES’sOur Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer have provided certifications to the SEC as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These certifications are included as exhibits to this Annual Report Form 10-K.

Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Code of Conduct”) and Corporate Governance Guidelines have been adopted by theour Board of Directors. The Code of Conduct is intended to govern as a requirement of employment the actions of everyone who works at AES, including employees of AESour subsidiaries and affiliates. The Code of Conduct and the Corporate Governance Guidelines are located in


their entirety on the Company’sour web site (www.aes.com).site. Any person may obtain a copy of the Code of Conduct or the Corporate Governance Guidelines without charge by making a written request to: Corporate Secretary, The AES Corporation, 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. If any amendments to or waivers from the Code of Conduct or the Corporate Governance Guidelines are made, we will disclose such amendments or waivers on our website.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The following individuals listed below are AES’sour executive officers:

Paul Hanrahan, 4849 years old, is thehas been our President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.since 2002. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Hanrahan was theour Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of the Company.President. In this role, he was responsible for business development activities and the operation of multiple electric utilities and generation facilities in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Mr. Hanrahan was previously the President and CEO of the AES China Generating Company, Ltd., a public company formerly listed on NASDAQ. Mr. Hanrahan also has managed other AES businesses in the United States, Europe and Asia. Prior to joining AES, Mr. Hanrahan served as a line officer on the U.S. fast attack nuclear submarine, USS Parche (SSN-683). Mr. Hanrahan is a graduate of Harvard Business School and the U.S. Naval Academy.

David S. Gee 5152 years old, isbecame an Executive Vice President of the Company in 2006 and the Regional President of North America.America in 2005. Prior to joining the Companyus in 2004, Mr. Gee was Vice President of Strategic Planning for PG&E in San Francisco, California.California from 2000 until 2004. Mr. Gee was a principal consultant for McKinsey & Co. from 1985 to 2000 in Houston, Mexico City and London. He was also an Associate for Baker Hughes and Booz Allen & Hamilton in Houston, Texas. Mr. Gee has a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Virginia and a Master of Science degree in Finance from the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Andres R. Gluski, 4849 years old, ishas been an Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company since March 2007. Prior to becoming the Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Gluski was Executive Vice President and the Regional President of Latin America.America since 2005, and will continue as Regional President until a new Regional President is named. Mr. Gluski was Senior Vice President for the Caribbean and Central America from 2003 to 2005, was Group Manager and CEO of Electricidad de Caracas (“EDC”) (Venezuela) from 2002 to 2003, served as CEO of Gener (Chile) in 2001 and was Executive Vice President of EDC and Corporacion EDC. Prior to joining the Companyus in 1997, Mr. Gluski was Executive Vice President of Corporate Banking for Banco


de Venezuela and Executive Vice President of Finance of CANTV in Venezuela. Mr. Gluski is a graduate of Wake Forest University and holds a Master of Arts and a Doctorate in Economics from the University of Virginia.

Victoria D. Harker, 4142 years old, ishas been an Executive Vice President and theour Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Ms. Harker joined the Company as Chief Financial Officer onsince January 23, 2006. Prior to joining the Company,us, Ms. Harker held the positions of Acting Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer of MCI from November 2002 through January 2006. Prior to that, Ms. Harker served as Chief Financial Officer of MCI Group, a unit of WorldCom Inc., from 1998 to 2002. Prior to 1998, Ms. Harker held several positions at MCI in the areas of finance, information technology and operations. Ms. Harker received her Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Economics from the University of Virginia and a Master’s in Business Administration, Finance from American University.

Robert F. Hemphill, Jr., 6263 years old, ishas been an Executive Vice President and has been Executive Vice Presidentof the Company since rejoining the Company onus in February 5, 2004. Mr. Hemphill served as aour Director of the Company from June 1996 to February 2004 and was an Executive Vice President from 1982 to June 1996. Prior to this, Mr. Hemphill held various leadership positions since joining the Companyus in 1982. Mr. Hemphill also serves on the Boards of Reactive Nanotechnologies, Inc., Trophogen Inc. and Trophogen Inc.the Electric Drive Transportation Association. Mr. Hemphill received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Yale University, a Master of Arts in Political


Science from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Master’s in Business Administration, Finance from George Washington University.

Haresh R. Jaisinghani, 39 years old, is an Executive Vice President and the Regional President of Asia and Middle East. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Jaisinghani was Vice President of Generation Asia from 2003 to 2005 and was Group Manager of Asia from 2001 to 2003. Mr. Jaisinghani also served as Managing Director and Country Head of Bangladesh from 1997 through 1999. Prior to joining the Company in 1994, Mr. Jaisinghani was Project Director for GM Bijlani Construction Company. Mr. Jaisinghani holds a Bachelor in Civil Engineering from the University of Bombay, India and a Master of Science in Construction Management from the University of Maryland.

Jay L. Kloosterboer, 4546 years old, is theour Executive Vice President of Business Excellence. Mr. Kloosterboer joined the Companyus in 2003 as Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer. Prior to joining us, Mr. Kloosterboer held the Company, he waspositions of Vice President,President- Human Resources and Communications, for Honeywell International’s Automation and Control Solutions business.Solutions; Vice President—Human Resources, Home & Building Control; Vice President- Human Resources, Aerospace Services; Vice President—Human Resources & Communications, Automotive Products Group and Director-Human Resources, Automotive Aftermarket of Honeywell International from 1996 to 2003. Mr. Kloosterboer also held management positions at General Electric and Morgan Stanley. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Marquette University and holds a Master of Arts degree from the New Mexico State University.

William R. Luraschi, 4243 years old, is theour Executive Vice President of Business Development and Strategy.President of the Alternative Energy Business. Mr. Luraschi joined AESus in 1993 and has been an Executive Vice President since July 2003. He was our General Counsel of the Company from January 1994 until May 2005. Mr. Luraschi also served as Corporate Secretary from February 1996 until June 2002. Prior to joining the Company,us, he was an attorney with the law firm of Chadbourne & Parke, LLP. Mr. Luraschi received a Bachelor of Science from the University of Connecticut and holds a Juris Doctorate from Rutgers School of Law.

Brian A. Miller, 4041 years old, is anour Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of the Company.Secretary. Mr. Miller joined the Companyus in 2001 and has served asin various positions including Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, Corporate Secretary, General Counsel for North America and Assistant General Counsel. Prior to joining the Company,us, he was an attorney with the law firm Chadbourne & Parke, LLP. Mr. Miller received his bachelor’s degree in History and Economics from Boston College and holds a Juris Doctorate from the University of Connecticut School of Law.


Shahzad Qasim,John McLaren,  5144 years old, is an Executive Vice President of the Company, and Regional President of Europe & Africa. Mr. McLaren served as Vice President of Operations for AES Europe & Africa from 2003 to 2006 (and AES Europe, Middle East and Africa from May 2005 to January 2006), Group Manager for Operations in Europe & Africa from 2002 to 2003, Project Director from 2000 to 2002, and Business Manager for AES Medway Operations Ltd. from 1997 to 2000. Mr. McLaren joined us in 1993. He holds a Master’s in Business Administration from the University of Greenwich Business School in London.

Mark E. Woodruff, 49 years old, is an Executive Vice President of the Company and the Regional President of Europe and Africa.Asia. Prior to his most recent position, Mr. Qasim served as SeniorWoodruff was Vice President of Generation Middle EastNorth America Business Development from 2001September 2006 to 2005,March 2007 and was Vice President of AES for the Middle East and South AsiaNorth America West region from 19982002 to 2000, Project Director of Pakistan and Central Asia from 1993 to 1998 and Director of New Ventures from 1992 to 1993.2006. Mr. Woodruff has held various leadership positions since joining us is 1992. Prior to joining the Company, heus in 1991, Mr. Woodruff was an engagement managera Project Manager for McKinseyDelmarva Capital Investments, a subsidiary of Delmarva Power & Co.Light Company. Mr. Qasim hasWoodruff holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from NED Engineering University, Pakistan and a Masters in Energy Management and PolicyAerospace Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania.Delaware.

Regulatory Matters

United States.Over the past decade, a series of regulatory policies have been adoptedThe Company is subject to complex energy, environmental and other governmental laws and regulations, both in the United States that encourage competition in wholesale and retail electricity markets. These policies have been implemented both at the federal level and in many states, at the state level. The federal government regulates wholesaleother countries where it conducts business. These regulations affect most aspects of its business, including the development, ownership and operation of power marketsgenerating facilities and transmission facilities in most of the continental U.S., while each of the fifty states regulates retail electricity markets and distribution.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has ratemaking jurisdiction and other authority with respect to interstate wholesale sales and transmission of electric energy under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) and with respect to certain interstate sales, transportation and storage of natural gas under the Natural Gas Act. In 1996, the FERC issued Order # 888, which mandated the functional separation of generation and transmission operations and required utilities to provide open access to their transmission systems. Each utility under the FERC’s jurisdiction was required to file an Open Access Transmission Tariff. In 2000, the FERC issued Order # 2000, which established the functions and characteristics of Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) as a means to ensure independent administration of the open access policy and to help increase investment in transmission infrastructure. The RTO assumed functions traditionally handled by utilities, such as security, coordination and planning.

Beginning in the fall of 2001, regulatory officials in the United States began to re-examine the nature and pace of deregulation of electricity markets. This re-examination was primarily a result of extreme price volatility and energy shortages in California and portions of the western markets during the period from May 2000 through June 2001. The conclusions reached in this re-examination have not been uniform, but rather have differed from state to state and between the federal government and the states themselves. Thus, a number of states have advocated against restructuring and abandoned any efforts to proceed with deregulation of retail markets, while the FERC has continued its efforts to enhance “open access” electric transmission and enhance competition in bulk power (wholesale) markets, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. This has led to a number of confrontations and legal proceedings between the FERC and the states over jurisdiction. We believe that over the next decade the United States will continue to resemble a “patchwork quilt” of differing regulatory policies at the retail level.

The federal government, through regulations promulgated by the FERC, has primary jurisdiction over wholesale electricity markets and transmission services. Since 1986, the FERC has approved market based rate authority for many providers of wholesale generation, and the mix of market players has shifted toward non-utility entities, referred to as Independent Power Producers (“IPPs”) or Electric Wholesale Generators (“EWGs”), whose rates are negotiated rather than based on costs. The FERC has issued a number of orders that increase the reporting requirements of entities requesting market based rates. The FERC is in the process of issuing a rulemaking concerning the four criteria examined in granting market based rate authority and the resulting regulations may result in a more stringent analysis and therefore the denial of market based rate authority to a number of entities. Recently there has also been a shift back to utilities supplying their own generation, through affiliate contracts, acquisition of distressed assets, and traditional utility construction. These assets are included in ratebase and represent a move back to traditional cost of service ratemaking regulation.


On August 8, 2005 the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPAct 2005”). The legislation repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act (“PUHCA of 1935”) and replaced itconnection with the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (“PUHCA of 2005”), which became effective on February 8, 2006. The repeal of the PUHCA of 1935 removed utility holding companies from the jurisdiction of the SEC and greatly reduced the financial and governance restrictions imposed on utility holding companies. The PUHCA of 2005 increases federal and state access to books and records, but does not restrict mergers and acquisitions of non-contiguous utilities as did the previous law.

Under Section 203 of the FPA, as amended by EPAct 2005, the FERC has increased authority to review mergers and acquisitions, including acquisitions of foreign utility companies. However, the FERC has issued regulations that give a holding company that owns a transmitting utility or an electric utility company and has captive U.S. customers (such as AES) blanket authority to acquire a foreign utility company upon making a notice filing containing specific certifications with respect to the protection of such customers from the effects of the acquisition.

EPAct 2005 also provides the FERC with new authority to certify an Electric Reliability Organization (“ERO”) that will set mandatory reliability standards for the U.S. grid. The North American Electric Reliability Council (“NERC”) will most likely fill this role and have enforcement authority. NERC recently adopted a set of reliability standards that consist of existing operating and planning standards. Although NERC has not historically had authority to mandate compliance with these standards, utilities generally choose to voluntarily comply with the standards. The new legislation gives NERC the ability to make standards mandatory and would grant them the authority to enforce these standards through the issuance of financial penalties.

Finally, EPAct 2005 amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”) and instructs the FERC to promulgate regulations to implement the amendments. Pursuant to this directive, the FERC has issued a final rule that: (i) prescribes new restrictive criteria that new cogeneration facilities must meet in order to be designated as qualifying facilities (“QFs”) under PURPA; (ii) removes the restrictions on ownership of QFs by an entity that is primarily engaged in the generation or sale of electric power; and (iii) for new QFs eliminates certain regulatory exemptions that QFs previously received. The FERC has also issued a proposed rule that for new power sales contracts would effectively remove the requirement that utilities purchase energy and capacity produced by QFs if the utilities (i) are located within the control areas of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (“Midwest ISO”), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., ISO New England, Inc. or the New York Independent System Operators or (ii) otherwise meet certain criteria relating to market access for QFs. We are evaluating the impact of these rules on our businesses.

There are currently major changes pending in the structure and rules governing the California wholesale energy market. The outcome of any significant market or regulatory changes will affect market conditions for all market participants, including AES. As a result of price volatility during 2000 and 2001, a number of parties, including the State of California and the California Independent System Operator, are seeking refunds from certain entities that supplied power within the state during 2000 and 2001, although our overall exposure to this risk is largely mitigated as a result of our tolling agreement related to the Southland plants. However, a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion found that the FERC had abused its administrative discretion by declining to order refunds for violations of its reporting requirements and remanded the issue to the FERC. Appeal of that order is currently pending. Separate appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are also pending which could change the timing of the refund period. AES Placerita made sales to the California Power Exchange during this period. Depending on the result of the pending appeals and the time period at issue, as well as the method of calculating refunds, AES Placerita’s exposure could be $23 million. There are no performance bonds or corporate guarantees supporting AES Placerita and no liability has been established in the refund proceedings for


other AES entities. In addition, we have been named in a number of lawsuits covering this period and are not certain of their outcome. See Item 3—Legal Proceedings in this Form 10-K.

In addition to the FERC regulation described above, IPL is subject to regulation by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”) as to its services and facilities, the valuation of property, the construction, purchase, or lease of electric generating facilities, the classification of accounts, rates of depreciation, retail rates and charges, the issuance of securities (other than evidences of indebtedness payable less than twelve months after the date of issue), the acquisition and sale of public utility properties or securitieselectricity. The Company must also comply with applicable environmental and certain other matters.

IPL’s tariff rates for electric service to retail customers (basic ratesland use laws, rules and charges) are set and approved by the IURC after public hearings. Such proceedings, which have occurred at irregular intervals, involve IPL, the staff of the IURC, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, and other interested consumer groups and customers. Pursuant to statute, the IURC is to conduct a periodic review of the basic rates and charges of all utilities at least once every four years.regulations.


Latin America

The majority of IPL customers are served pursuant to retail tariffs that provide for the monthly billing or crediting to customers of increases or decreases, respectively, in the actual costs of fuel consumed from estimated fuel costs embedded in basic rates, subject to certain restrictions on the level of operating income. In addition, IPL’s rate authority provides for a return on IPL’s investment and recovery of the depreciation and operation and maintenance expenses associated with the nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) compliance construction program and its multipollutant plan.

On April 1, 2005, IPL began participation in the restructured wholesale energy market operated by the Midwest ISO. The implementation of this restructured market marks a significant change in the way IPL buys and sells electricity and schedules generation. Prior to the restructured market, IPL dispatched its generation and purchased power resources directly to meet its demands. In the restructured market, IPL offers its generation and bids its demand into the market on an hourly basis. The Midwest ISO settles these hourly offers and bids based on locational marginal prices or LMPs, i.e., pricing for energy at a given location based on a market clearing price that takes into account physical limitations, generation and demand throughout the Midwest ISO region. The Midwest ISO evaluates the market participants’ energy injections into, and withdrawals from, the system to economically dispatch the entire Midwest ISO system on a five-minute basis. Market participants are able to hedge their exposure to congestion charges, which result from constraints on the transmission system, with certain Financial Transmission Rights, or “FTRs”. Participants are allocated FTRs each year and are permitted to purchase additional FTRs. As anticipated and in keeping with similar market start-ups around the world, LMPs are volatile and there are process, data, and model issues requiring editing and enhancement. IPL and other market participants have raised concerns with certain Midwest ISO transactions and the resolution of these items could impact our results of operations.

Argentina.In January and February 2002, the Argentine government adopted many new economic measures as a result of the continuing political, social and economic crisis. TheseThe new economic measures includedincluded: (i) the abandonment of the country’s fixed dollar-to-peso exchange rate, (ii) the conversion of U.S. dollar-denominateddollar denominated loans into pesos and (iii) the placement of restrictions on the convertibility of the Argentine peso.  Since 2003, the political and social situation in Argentina has showed signs of stabilization, the Argentine peso has appreciated against the U.S. dollar, and the economy and electricity demand has started to recover.

The regulations adopted in 2002 and 2003 in the energy sector effectively overturned the U.S. dollar based nature of the electricity sector. In the wholesale power market, electricity generators declared their costs of generation (which reflected their fuel costs) on a semi-annual basis. Under the current regulations, energy prices were partially converted from the original U.S. dollar denomination into Argentine pesos (“pesofied”pesified”), following the pesoficationpesification of the price of natural gas. However, the authorities permitted the


production of cost for alternative fuels (fuel oil, coal) to reflect international costs. In order to avoid price increases associated with the use of alternative fuels, market regulations were changed so that the spot price will beis set considering only production costs declared with natural gas. Therefore, while generators receivedreceive remuneration for the use of alternative fuel, this cost is not considered when setting the spot price. Because of this, generation prices still reflect an artificially low fuel price, but because ofdue to the gas supply crisis and the subsequent agreement between the government and the gas producers to readaptreset the prices, as described  below, this effect has been almost offset and gas prices will reachhave returned to the original value in 2006.levels of 2001 prior to the economic crises.

During 2004, the Energy Secretariat reached agreements with natural gas and electricity producers to reform the energy markets. The agreement with natural gas producers established a recovery path that increased wellhead prices to 80% of the original U.S. dollar price of 2001 by July 2005 and a second path that will reachreached export parity by the end of 2006. In the electricity sector, the Energy Secretariat passed Resolution 826/2004, inviting generators to partially contribute their existing and future credits in the Wholesale Electricity Market (“WEM”) from January 2004 to December 2006 which willto fund the development and construction of two new capacitycombined cycle power plants to be installed by 2008.2008/2009. In exchange, the GovernmentArgentine government committed to reform the market rulesregulation to match the pre-crisis rules prevailing before December 2001, including setting the capacity payment with a U.S. dollar reference and eliminating all regulations fixing an artificially low price in the wholesale market by 2008. The Argentina2009. As of May 31, 2005, the Argentine government reached an agreement on thisthese reforms with more than 90% of the generatorsgenerator companies. In October 2005, by May 2005. On October 7, Resolution 1193/2005 the Energy Secretariat passed Resolution 1193/05 that startsand the process of re-adaptation throughpower generators signed the definitivefinal agreement for the management and operation of the projects intended to reset the electricity market. This definitive agreement was signed on October 17, 2005.In February 2006, the Energy Secretariat approved the bylaws of the new companies, “Termoelectrica General San Martin S.A.” and “Termoelectrica General Belgrano S.A.” to be located in Timbues, next to Rosario city in Santa Fe province and in Campana city, Buenos Aires province, respectively. There can be no assurance, however, that the ArgentinaArgentine government will honor its commitment to release restrictive measures that it has placed upon wholesale prices after the new capacity is installed.

Under the previous regulations, distribution companies were granted long-term concessions (up to 99 years) which provided, directly or indirectly, tariffs based upon U.S. dollars and adjusted by the U.S. consumer price index and producer price index. Under the new regulations, tariffs are no longer linked to the U.S. dollar and U.S. inflation indices. The tariffs of all distribution companies were converted to pesos and were frozen at the peso notionalnational rate as of December 31, 2001. In October 2003, the Argentine Congress enacted Law No. 25,790, thatwhich established the procedure for renegotiation of the public utilities concessions and extended the period for that process until December 31, 2006.2007. In combination, these circumstances create significant uncertainty surrounding the performance of the electricity industry in Argentina, including the ArgentineArgentina subsidiaries of AES.

On November 12, 2004, EDELAP, an AES distribution business, signed a Letter of Understanding with the Argentine Governmentgovernment in order to renegotiate its concession contract and to start a tariff reform


process, which was ratified by the National Congress on May 11, 2005. Final government approval was reachedobtained on July 14, 2005.  As a first step during this process, a Distribution Value Added (“DVA”) increase of 28%, effective February 1, 2005, has been granted. Invoicing of the tariff increase commenced in August 2005. The agreementLetter of Understanding also includes: (i) local cost adjustments to the tariff; (ii) elimination of penalties arising from the gas curtailment bypotential energy supply shortages in Argentina; (iii) long termlong-term payment terms offor penalties owed to the customers; and (iv) and other favorable conditions which are intended to increasebenefit the company value.company. The agreement was the first of its kind signed with UNIREN (Unit for the Renegotiation and Analysis of Public Services Contracts) in the Argentine electricity sector. Upon execution of the Letter of Understanding, AES agreed to postpone or suspend certain international claims,claims; however, the Letter of Understanding provides that if the government does not fulfill its commitments, AES may re-start the international claim process. AES has postponed any action until the tarifftarriff reset is finalized (not later than December 2006).

finalized. On January 20, 2006, the Argentine regulator (ENRE) postponed the public hearing for the tariff review process; a new date for these processes has not been set. On October 24, 2005, EDEN and EDES, two AES distribution businesses in Argentina, signed a Letter of Understanding with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Services of the Province of Buenos Aires to renegotiate their concession contracts and to start a tariff reform process, which was approved by


a Governor Decree on November 30, 2005.  This Letter of Understanding includes the following:

(i)            an initial 19% DVA increase effective August 2005, and an additional DVA increase which will be in force in accordance with National Government policies; policies (8% DVA increase was granted effective January 1, 2007);

(ii)        penalties recorded during the 2002-20052002 to 2005 period will not be paid;

(iii)    Quality Service Regime penalties will be reducedreduced; and

(iv)      full tariff reset proceedings will be carried out in 2007. 2007 with a new tariff in force since February 2008.

This Letter of Understanding also includes other favorable conditions beneficial to these distribution facilities. TheAES agreed to postpone or suspend certain international claims; however, like the EDELAP Letter of Understanding, this Letter of Understanding provides that in case the government does not fulfill its commitments, AES may re-start the international claim process. AES has postponed any action with respect to international claims until the tariff reset is finalized (not later than December 2007).finalized.

Brazil.Brazil. Under the present regulatory structure, the power industry in Brazil is regulated by the Brazilian government, acting through the Ministry of Mines and Energy (“MME”) and the National Electric Energy Agency (“ANEEL”), an independent federal regulatory agency which has exclusive authority over the Brazilian power industry.

ANEEL’s main function is to ensure the efficient and economic supply of energy to consumers by monitoring prices and ensuring adherence to market rules by market participants in line with policies dictated by the MME. ANEEL supervises concessions for electricity generation, transmission, trading and distribution, including the approval of applications for the setting of tariff rates, and supervising and auditing the concessionaires. ANEEL’s core areas of responsibility that are directly related to AES’s businesses are: economic regulation, technical regulation and consumer affairs oversight.

On December 21, 2001, in order to compensate electricity distributors and generators for losses incurred during the rationing program instituted in June of that year, the President of Brazil issued a provisional measure. The provisional measure provided general authorization for: (i) the pass-through to consumers of costs incurred by generators for the purchase of energy at spot prices during the rationing program, (ii) the recovery in future years of revenue losses sustained by distributors during the rationing period, through an Extraordinary Tariff Adjustment (“RTE”), and (iii) the institution, by11, 2003, the Brazilian National Bank for Economicgovernment announced and Social Development (“BNDES”), of an emergency support program in order to compensate distributors, generators and independent power producers for the rationing impacts, which contemplates the disbursement of some loans to these companies.

The Brazilian government establishedproposed a tracking account mechanism (“CVA”) to mitigate risks relating to Parcel A costs (non-manageable costs relating to energy purchase and sector charges that each distribution company is permitted to pass through to customers) not being passed-through to tariffs.

Generator’s and distributor’s losses are recovered through the RTE, as calculated pursuant to a resolution issued by ANEEL on January 24, 2002 and a resolution issued by the Energy Crisis Coordination Committee, the committee created as result of the energy crisis, on December 21, 2001. As of January 2002, the Company was permitted to charge consumers the RTE over a 65-month period. However, after regulatory review, and in order to allow the full recovery of the Parcel A costs, ANEEL, through a resolution issued on January 12, 2004, established the extension of AES Eletropaulo’s RTE recovery period (from 65 to 70 months), and that Parcel A recovery will happen only after the RTE recovery.

Under the rationing agreement of 2001, AES Sul was permitted to record additional revenue and a corresponding receivable from the spot market during 2001 and the first quarter of 2002. However, ANEEL promulgated Order # 288 in May 2002, which retroactively changed the calculation methods for electricity pricing in the Brazilian Wholesale Energy Market, Mercado Atacadista de Energia or “MAE”, transforming a $187 million credit in the favor of AES Sul into a debt of $34.8 million. We recorded a pretax provision of approximately $160 million, including the amounts for AES Sul, against revenues during May 2002, to reflect the negative impacts of this retroactive regulatory decision.


On August 23, 2002, AES Sul filed a lawsuit against the ANEEL seeking the annulment of Order # 288. On September 18, 2002, a preliminary injunction was granted to AES Sul. This injunction was suspended due to an Interlocutory Appeal filed by ANEEL on September 20, 2002. However, on July 20, 2005, ANEEL’s appeal was deemed groundless by the Federal Region Court, and the original injunction granted AES Sul was reinstated. Therefore, ANEEL must file with the Câmara de Comercialização de Energia Elétrica (“CCEE”) (formerly the MAE) to recalculate settlement amounts for each market participant during this disputed period, and to issue new credit/debit invoices to these market participants. A decision on the merits is still pending with the first level court.

If a settlement occurs with the effect of Order # 288 in place, AES Sul will owe approximately a net amount of $30 million, based upon the December 31, 2004 exchange rate. AES Sul does not believe it will have sufficient funds to make this payment and several creditors have filed lawsuits in an effort to collect amounts they claim are overdue. AES Sul is petitioning the courts to aggregate the individual lawsuits with payments until the matter is resolved. If AES Sul prevails and the MAE settlement occurs absent the effect of Order # 288, AES Sul will receive approximately $132 million, based upon the December 31, 2004 exchange rate. If AES Sul is unsuccessful and unable to pay any amount that may be due to MAE, penalties and fines could be imposed up to and including the termination of the concession contract by ANEEL. AES Sul is current on all MAE charges and costs incurred subsequent to the period in question in the Order # 288 matter. All amounts, including the amount owed to MAE in the event AES Sul loses the case, are provisioned in AES Sul’s books.

The CVA is a tracking account that records non-manageable costs monthly price variations (positive and negative) over the course of the year. At each tariff adjustment date, distribution companies would be allowed an additional tariff increase, for the following 12 months, in order to compensate for the accumulated value of the CVA plus interest. On April 4, 2003, the MME issued a decree postponing, for a 1-year period, the tracking account tariff increase. According to this decree, the pass-through to tariffs of the amounts accumulated in the tracking account for the distribution concessionaires that had been scheduled to occur from April 8, 2003 to April 7, 2004 were postponed to the subsequent year’s tariff adjustment. As a result, approximately $12 million and $173 million, for AES Sul and AES Eletropaulo, respectively, are to be recovered over a 24-month period rather than the usual 12-month period. AES Eletropaulo and AES Sul received in their respective 2004 tariff adjustments, 50% of the deferred CVA recoverable over a 12-month period; and the additional 50% as part of the 2005 tariff adjustments, which will be recoverable over the ensuing 12-month period.

In order to compensate for the deferral of the increase relating to the tracking account, BNDES provided distribution companies with loans, which will be repaid during the recovery period. On December 23, 2004, AES Sul received a BNDES loan equivalent to $16.5 million and on June 3, 2004, AES Eletropaulo received a BNDES loan equivalent to $166 million, both to be repaid within the recovery period.

In order to maintain the economic and financial equilibrium of the concession, utilities are entitled to the following types of tariff adjustments contemplated in the concession contracts:

·       annual tariff adjustments;

·       tariff reset; and

·       extraordinary revisions, in the event of significant changes in concessionaires’ cost structure.

The primary purpose of the Annual Tariff Adjustment (“IRT”) is the maintenance of an adjusted tariff for inflation and the sharing of efficiency gains with consumers. The IRT uses a formula such that non-manageable (Parcel A) costs are passed through to the consumers and manageable (Parcel B) costs are indexed to inflation. An ‘X-Factor’ is applied to capture the sharing of efficiency gains, effectively reducing the inflation index that is applied to Parcel B costs. The operations and maintenance costs


considered in the tariff are based on the concept of a Reference Company, not actual costs. In many cases, the Reference Company may not be reflective of distribution companies operating in Brazil and thus, underestimate true operating costs. These costs which include certain taxes and other issues are being discussed under administrative appeal with ANEEL. In addition, the distribution companies are challenging certain methodologies used for the tariff revision.

ANEEL authorized an average adjustment of 2.12% for AES Eletropaulo tariffs on July 4, 2005. ANEEL authorized an average adjustment of 9.42% for AES Sul on April 19, 2005.

The Brazilian government carried out a wide reform in the Brazilian power sector and on December 11, 2003, announced a proposed new model for the Brazilian power sector (the “New Power Sector Model”) and enacted Provisional Measures #144 and #145, which set forth the basic rules that will govern the New Power Sector Model. On March 15, 2004, Law #10848 was enacted, which sets forth the basis of the new regulatory framework and general rules for power commercialization, regulated by Decree #5163, of July 30, 2004 and other administrative rulings.

30




The main points of the New Power Sector Model and its impact on AES businesses in Brazil are as follows:

·       It creates two energy commercialization environments: (1) the regulated contractual environment (ACR), intended for the distribution companies, and (2) the free contract environment (ACL), designed for traders and free consumers.

·       As of January 2005, every distribution utility is obligated to meet 100% of its anticipated energy requirements, subject to the application of penalties. Compliance with such obligation requires distribution companies to contract for energy through: (i) auctions of energy from new (proposed) generation projects; (ii) auctions of energy from existing generation facilities; and (iii) other sources, including public calls to purchase energy from distributed generation; renewable energy sources (through PROINFA—public auctions or the Brazilian Renewable Energy Incentive Program)Program - PROINFA); pre-existing purchases made before Law #10848/04; and purchases from Itaipu.

·       Distribution utilities can pass through the amounts contracted, up to 103% of their load, conditioned upon the amendment of the concession contracts:contracted load. ANEEL will adoptadopted a new pass-through methodology in the annual tariff adjustment; and variations of the energy purchase costs will beare reflected in thea tracking account (CVA)., which records the monthly price variations of non-manageable costs, both positive and negative, over the course of the year.

As part of the implementation process of the New Power Sector Model, distribution companies signed amendments to the concession contracts, which modified thea clause relating to the tariffs with respect to: (i) methodology of power purchase cost pass-through;pass-through (mentioned above); and (ii) exclusion of PIS/COFINS (taxes over revenue).

The Electric Energy Commercialization Chamber (“CCEE”), successor of the MAE, carried out on December 7, 2004, the largest auction in the country’s history on December 7, 2004, in which power distribution utilities bought energy to serve 100% of their markets projected for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The energy traded in this auction will be2007 entering into the object of contracts lasting eight years starting from 2005, 2006 and 2007.corresponding Regulated Power Purchase Agreements—CCEAR. The Brazilian government is insertinginserted the rights for the CVA of energy purchased fromin the auctionauctions into the concession contracts by an amendment to agreement on additional amendments to concessionsaid contracts. This can represent risk relating to certain aspects of the current IRT methodology. The New Power Sector Model Law is currently being challenged on constitutional grounds before the Brazilian Supreme Court. To date, the Brazilian Supreme Court has not reached a final decision and we dodecision. Although the Company does not know when such a decision may be reached. Therefore,reached, the New Power Sector Model is currently in force. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s final decision, certain portions of the New Power Sector Model relating to restrictions on distributors performing activities unrelated to the distribution of electricity, including sales of energy by distributors to free consumers and the elimination of contracts between related parties, are expected to remain in full force and effect.it is very unlikely that it will be found unconstitutional.

23




If all or a portionIn order to maintain the economic and financial equilibrium of the New Power Sector Modelconcession, utilities are entitled to the following types of tariff adjustments contemplated in the concession contracts:

·       annual tariff adjustments;

·       tariff reset; and

·       extraordinary revisions, in the event of significant changes in concessionaires’ cost structure.

The primary purpose of the Annual Tariff Adjustment (“IRT”) is determined unconstitutionalthe maintenance of an adjusted tariff for inflation and the sharing of efficiency gains with consumers. The IRT uses a formula such that non-manageable (Parcel A) costs are passed through to the consumers and manageable (Parcel B) costs are indexed to inflation. An ‘X-Factor’ is applied to capture the sharing of efficiency (scale) gains, effectively reducing the inflation index that is applied to Parcel B costs. The operations and maintenance costs considered in the tariff are based on the concept of a Reference Company, not on actual costs. In many cases, the Reference Company may not be reflective of distribution companies operating in Brazil and thus, underestimate true operating costs. ANEEL authorized an average adjustment of 11.45% (IRT) for Eletropaulo tariffs, effective July 4, 2006. The second tariff reset for Eletropaulo is scheduled for 2007, while the second tariff reset for Sul is scheduled for 2008.


AES’s business in Brazil is still attempting to resolve certain regulatory issues relating to a rationing program instituted in 2001. Specifically, on December 21, 2001, the President of Brazil issued a provisional measure which provided general authorization for: (i) pass-through to consumers of costs incurred by generators for the purchase of energy at spot prices during the rationing program and (ii) recovery in future years of revenue losses sustained by distributors during the rationing period, through an Extraordinary Tariff Adjustment (“RTE”). ANEEL, through a resolution issued on January 12, 2004, established AES Eletropaulo’s RTE recovery period at 70 months and stated that Parcel A recovery will happen only after the RTE recovery.

AES Sul is pursuing the annulment of ANEEL’s Order 288, May 16, 2002, in which ANEEL retroactively prohibited several companies, AES Sul included, the opportunity to choose not to participate in the “exposition relief mechanism,” which allowed these companies to sell the energy from Itaipu into the spot market. This lawsuit has a financial impact of about R$373 million (historic values referring to 2001). AES Sul was granted a preliminary injunction ordering ANEEL to review CCEE’s accounts. This lawsuit awaits the judge’s decision regarding ANEEL’s petition to include CCEE as a participant in the lawsuit. If a settlement occurs with the effect of Order # 288 in place, AES Sul will owe a net amount of approximately R$80 million (historic values referring to 2001). If AES Sul is unsuccessful and unable to pay any amount that may be due to CCEE, penalties and fines could be imposed up to and including the termination of the concession contract by ANEEL. AES Sul is current on all CCEE charges and costs incurred subsequent to the period in question in the Order # 288 matter. All amounts, including the amount owed to CCEE in the event AES Sul loses the case, are reserved in AES Sul’s books.

AES’ concession agreement with the State of Sao Paulo for the Tiete generation plant includes an obligation to increase generation capacity by 15% by the Brazilian Supreme Court, the regulatory scheme introduced by the New Power Sector Model mayend of 2007. It is anticipated that AES, as well as other concessionaire generators, will not come into effect, generating uncertainty as to how and when the Brazilian government will be able to introduce changesmeet this requirement due to regulatory and hydrological conditions making the electric energy sector. Weincrease impossible. The matter is under consideration by the State Government of São Paulo. AES is seeking to resolve the issue through an extension of the deadline or other options. An adverse decision by the regulator could have already purchased a significant portionnegative impact of our electricity needs through 2016,on the value of the plant, but at this time the positions of ANEEL and the pass-through to tariffsState of such electricity is expected to continue to be governed by the regulation in effect on the date of the purchase. As such, irrespective of the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision, we believe that in the short term the effects of any such decision on our activities will be limited. Nevertheless, the exact effect of an unfavorable outcome of the legal proceedings on us is difficult to predict and it could have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations.Sao Paulo are not known.

Cameroon.   The law governing the electricity sector was passed and promulgated in December 1998, which defines the new institutional organization of the electricity sector. This law, and subsequent ministerial decrees and orders, govern the activities of the electricity sector, sets the rates and basis for the calculation, recovery and distribution of royalties due by operators in the electricity sector, and spells out required documents and charges for the processing of applications relating to concession, license, authorization and declarationOn February 13, 2007 ANEEL issued Resolution #250/07 in order to carry out generation, transmission, distribution, importation, exportationclarify and sales of electricity.

The mission ofregulate the Electricity Sector Regulatory Board (“ARSEL”) involves regulating and ensuring the proper functioning of the electricity sector, maintaining its economic and financial balance and safeguarding the interests of electricity operators and consumers. ARSEL has the legal statusprovisions of a Public Administrative Establishment and is placed under the dual technical supervisory authority of the Ministries charged2003 law (Law #10762/03), which had not yet been interpreted by ANEEL. This new resolution establishes guidelines for dividing costs associated with electricity and finance.

The Concession agreement of July 18, 2001,new connection (or load increase) requested by customers, between the Republic of Cameroon and AES SONEL covers a twenty-year (20) period of which the first three years constituted a grace period to permit resolution of issues existing at the time of the privatization, and all penalties were waived. In 2004, AES SONELdistribution company and the Cameroonian Government started renegotiatingcorresponding customers.  AES is still evaluating the concession contract. The issues included infull effect of this renegotiation process were: the quality of services requirements, the connection targets, the tariff formulation, the obligation of developing new generation capacity and the penalties regime. AES SONEL expects to complete the renegotiation process in 2006.resolution.

Chile. In Chile, the regulation of production schedules for electricity generation facilities is based on the marginal cost, of production, which is the variable cost of the mostleast expensive next unit required by the system at theany time. The spot price among generation companies for both electrical capacity (the amount of electricity available at any point in time) and electrical energy (the amount of electricity produced or consumed over a period of time) is also the marginal cost of production. Chile has four electricity systems. The major two interconnected electricity systems are the Central Interconnected System (Sistema Interconectado Central) (“SIC”) and the Northern Interconnected System (Sistema Interconectado del Norte Grande) (“SING”), which cover almost 97% of the population of the country.

The electricity market in Chile is divided into three distinct segments, generation, transmission and distribution. The regulatory framework was enacted in 1982, and the underlying foundation has remained unchanged, except for amendments which have focused on providing clarifications and additional incentives to market participants.

Based on the Chilean electricity market framework, two electricity markets coexist: 1) a primary contract market for transactions between generators and customers, and 2) a secondary spot market for the exchange of energy and firm capacity among generators. In the primary market, customers, including regulated distribution companies and unregulated customers are obligated to enter into long-term power


purchase agreements, which specify the volume and financial terms associated with the sale of energy and capacity.

In the secondary market, the independent system operator (CDEC) in each system dispatches the plants in order to meet demand for electricity at any point in time, the lowest marginal cost generating plant in an interconnected system is used before the next lowest marginal cost plant is dispatched. As a result,have, at any specific level of demand, the appropriate supply will be provided at the lowest possible marginal cost of production available in the system.system, considering transmission and reliability constraints.

GenerationAs a result, generation companies are free to enter into sales contracts with distribution companies and other customers for the sale of capacity and energy. However, the electricity necessary to fulfill these contracts is provided by the contracting generation company only if the generation company’s marginal cost of production is low enough for its generating capacity to be dispatched to meet demand. Otherwise, the generation company will purchase electricity from other generation companies at the marginal cost of the system, which is lower than the production in the system.


According to existing law, during periods when production cannot meet system demands, regardless of whether the government has enacted a rationing decree, the price of energy exchanges among generation companies is valued at the “shortage cost” determined by the National Energy Commission (“NEC”), which takes into account the cost to consumers for not having energy available. This law was first tested in November 1998 when generators in the SIC were unable to agree on the implementation of the shortage cost during the supply deficit and associated mandated rationing periods. The matter was referred to the Ministry of Economy, which issued its ruling in March 1999. Based on this decision, generators with energy deficits at the time were required to pay companies with energy surpluses the shortage cost or corresponding spot price equal to the cost of unserved energy for energy purchases during that period.company.

The prices paid to generation companies by distribution companies for capacity and energy to be resold to their retail customers are, pursuant to law, based on the expected average marginal cost of capacity or energy. In order to ensure price stability, however, the regulatory authorities in Chile establish prices, known asestablished “node prices,”prices” to be set every six months to be paid by distribution companies for the energy and capacity requirements of regulated consumers.consumers paid by distribution companies. Node prices for energy are calculated on the basis of the projections of the expected marginal costs within the system over the next 24 to 48 months, in the case of the SIC and the SING. The formula takes into account, among other things, assumptions regarding available supply and demand in the future. Node prices for capacity are based on the marginal investment required to meet peak demand, based on the cost of a diesel-fired turbine. Prices for capacity and energy sold to large customers (over 0.5 MW) and other generation companies purchasing on a contractual basis are unregulated and are often set with reference to node prices, alternative fuel prices, exchange rates and other factors. If average prices for capacity and energy sold to non-regulated customers differ from node prices by more than a defined percentage (5%-30%, calculated pursuant to regulations), node prices are adjusted upward or downward, as the case may be, so that the difference between such prices equals such percentage. In contrast, the spot price paid by one generation company to another for energy is referred to as the “system marginal cost,” which is based on the actual marginal cost of the highest cost generator producing electricity in the system during the relevant period, as determined on an hourly basis.

Since the system marginal cost for energy is set weekly (but may in certain circumstances be changed on a daily basis) based on variables that can change on an instantaneous basis, and the node price for energy is set every six months based on projections of these variables over the next 24 to 48 months, in the case of the SIC and SING, the system marginal cost for energy of a system tends to be more volatile than the node price for energy of that system. In periods of low water conditions that require greater generation of energy by more costly thermoelectric plants, the system marginal cost typically exceeds the node price. In periods of high water conditions when lower cost hydroelectric facilities can meet the majority of demand, the system marginal cost is typically below the node price and may in fact decline to zero at some hours.

On March 13, 2004, Law No. 19.940 was enacted establishing amendments to the existing Electricity Law, principally in relation to tolls charged for the use of high voltage network and transmission systems. The reduction of the minimum demand required to be considered as an unregulated customer went from 2 MW to 0.5 MW. In addition, other factors considered are the reduction of the floating band for regulated price from 10% to 5%, the incorporation of elements to create an ancillary services market and the pricing mechanism for small and medium-sized electricity systems. The modifications contained in Law No. 19.940 maintain or improve ourthe Company’s position with regard to both ourthe Company’s current status and projected development and, in particular, with regard to the issues related with transmission tolls. In addition, the Regulations to the Electricity Law, Supreme Decree No. 327, which was modified on October 9, 2003 with respect to the clarification of the methodology utilized to calculate transmission tolls, has been replaced by Law No. 19.940.

On March 25, 2004, the Argentine government published Resolution 265, which privileged the domestic supply of natural gas, immediately affecting the export of natural gas to neighboring countries


primarily Chile. (primarily Chile). However, this resolution provided suppliers with alternative means of supply under existing export contracts. Between April and June 2004, daily export restrictions to Chile fluctuated between 20% and 47% of contracted volumes, depending on domestic demand. At the end of 2004, the curtailments were less than 10% due to improved hydrological conditions in Argentina and Chile, and increased availability of Bolivian gas.

This situation changed at the beginning of 2005 when as a result of high electricity demand and natural gas consumption in Argentina, in addition to the policy established by CAMMESACompañia Administradora del Mercado Eléctrico (“CAMMESA”) to conserve water under Resolution 839, the curtailments


increased during summer months reaching a peak of almost 50%, equivalent to 402 Mmcf/d at the end of May 2005. From May until September 2005, the daily export restrictions to Chile fluctuated between 40% and 10%. In the last quarter of 2005, the restrictions were reduced by 7% to 12%, mainly due to improved hydrological conditions compared to the beginning of the year.

OurElectrica Santiago, a subsidiary Electrica Santiagoof the Company, produces electricity by burning natural gas produced in southern Argentina which is transported to central Argentina through a pipeline owned by Transportadora Gas del Norte S.A., or TGN, and then to Chile. The TGN pipeline supplies consumers in Argentina and Chile. Interruptions in the supply and/or transportation of natural gas by TGN would adversely affect the operations and financial condition of Electrica Santiago. Such potential interruptions would materially impair Electrica Santiago’s ability to generate electricity and would force it to rely on the spot market to purchase electricity to meet its contractual commitments. Furthermore, because all combined-cycle plants in the SIC use the same pipeline to obtain their natural gas supplies from Argentina, a disruption of this supply would materially increase prices in the spot market. The reliance on the spot market to purchase electricity could have a material adverse effect on Electrica Santiago.

On May 3, 2005, a bill to amend the Electric Law was approved by the Chilean Congresscongress which was promulgated by the executive branch on May 19, 2005 (Law No 20.018). The bill was designed to mitigate the effects of the restrictions on natural gas exports to Chile, which have been applied by the Argentine government since March 2004. The main aspects of Law 20.018 include:

·       implementation of public bid processes for distribution companies for their consumptions starting after 2009;

·       modification of regulated node price methodology, progressively replacing the node price with public bid prices and improvement in the correlation between regulated node prices and unregulated market prices in the interim period;

·       stabilization of generation companies’ revenues by allowing them to enter into long-term fixed price contracts with distribution companies (maximum of 15 years);

·       authorization of voluntary savings incentives which allow generation companies to directly negotiate demand reductions with final customers;

·       determination that natural gas shortages can no longer be considered force majeure events and compensation to customers by generation companies which fail to operate due to gas shortages; and

·       establishment of compensation for losses by generation companies when obligated to sell to distribution companies that are unable to independently contract adequate supplies.

China.The Chinese government isThese changes produced an improvement in the regulatory framework by reducing the risks of arbitrary regulatory intervention and creating a better investment environment. The first bid process was successfully carried out in October 2006. In November of implementing a fundamental long-term restructuring of the electric power sector, embodied2006, Gener was awarded 1,355 GWH in the National Power Industry Framework Reform Plan (the “Reform Plan”) promulgatedrecent bidding process held by the State Council in April 2002. The key elements of this plan involve separation of generation and transmission, and the introduction of market-driven competition into China’s electric power industry whereby generators will be required to compete in the market for their output, with a system of competitive bidding for on-grid tariffs.


As a result of the restructuring, a new industry regulator, China’s National Electricity Regulatory Commission (“China’s NERC”) was established. The responsibilities of China’s NERC include: promulgating operating rules for the electric power industry; supervising the operation of the electric power industry and safeguarding fair competition; monitoring the quality and standard of production by electric power enterprises; and issuing and administrating electric power service licenses.electricity distribution companies.

The surge in economic growth over the last three years increased the demand for electric power, which has outpaced previous demand forecasts, leading to a shortage of generating capacity and even load-shedding in some areas. The strong growth in electricity demand has caused the government to delay or slow the pace of moving towards a competitive market. However, it is expected that supply and demand in China will reach equilibrium in 2006, with some regional power grids experiencing supply surplus in 2007. The ultimate adoption of the Reform Plan may result in market Colombiaand regulatory changes.

In April 2005, with a view to implementing the power industry reform, the .National Development and Reform Commission released an interim regulation governing on-grid tariffs, along with two other regulations governing transmission and retail tariffs. All three came into effect on May 1, 2005 (“Interim Regulations”). Pursuant to the Interim Regulations, prior to adoption of a pooling system, the on-grid tariffs shall be appraised and ratified by the pricing authorities by reference to the economic life of power generation projects, and determined in accordance with the principle of allowing independent power producers to cover reasonable costs and to obtain reasonable returns. However, it further defined that the generation costs shall be the average costs in the industry and reasonable returns shall be formulated on the basis of interest rate of China’s long-term treasury bond plus certain percentage points. Furthermore, the Interim Regulations provided that, after adoption of a pooling system, the on-grid tariffs shall comprise two components: capacity charge and energy charge. The capacity charge shall be determined by the pricing authorities based on the average investment costs in the same regional power market; and the energy charge shall be determined through market competition. There is also a provision to allow the on-grid tariffs to be pegged to the fuel price in the case of significant fluctuations in fuel price. It is unclear whether these Interim Regulations will have a material adverse effect on our businesses.

Colombia.   In 1994 the Colombian Congress issued the laws of Domiciliary Public Services and the Electricity Law, which set the institutional arrangement for the electric sector and the general regulatory framework. The Regulatory Commission of Electricity and Gas (“CREG”) was created to foster the efficient supply of energy through regulation of the wholesale market, the natural monopolies of transmission and distribution, and by setting limits for horizontal and vertical economic integration. The control function was assigned to the Superintendency of Public Services. The Mining and Energy Planning Unit (“UPME”) develops plans for the energy sector. These plans are then adopted by the Ministry of Mines and Energy. TheIn addition to other initiatives, the general regulatory framework established free access in the networks, free entrance in the business, the creation of a wholesale market, the unbundling of activities, the principles for setting formulas for tariffs and the free selection of the provider by the consumer, among others.consumer.


The wholesale market is organized around both bilateral contracts and a mandatory pool and spot market for all generation units larger than 20 MW. Each unit offers its availability quantities for a 24 hour period with one price set for those 24 hours. The dispatch is arranged by price merit, and the spot price is set by the marginal unit. The system is one node.

TheColombia’s spot market startedbegan in July 1995, and in 1996 a capacity payment was introduced for a term of 10 years. In December 2006, Regulation 071 was enacted which replaced the capacity charge with a reliability charge. This paymentnew charge has been in place since December 2006 and is expected to have a positive impact on Chivor for 2007 of US$5.25 kW-month,15.5 million compared to the US$18.3 million that it received in 2006. Under the reliability charge mechanism, plants present firm energy price and itvolume offers in public auctions that are held three years prior to the initiation of supply. Plants are allowed to bid up to the maximum firm energy level which can be provided during drought conditions, as defined in a methodology utilized by the CREG. The new regulation includes a transition period from December 2006 to November 2009, during which the price is assigned through an administrativeequal to US$13 per MWh and centralized hydro/thermal dispatch modelvolume is determined based on firm energy offers which are pro-rated so that the calculatedtotal firm capacity that is needed to be generated under extremely dry conditions. This capacity payment is reflected in the spot market as a floor of the generators’ bids of approximately US$12/MWh. Although the 1996 capacity factors for hydro plants were based on the worst historical El Niño situation, in 2000 CREG recalculated these capacity factors based on a theoretically more severe hydrology condition. This regulatory change reduced the firm capacity


remuneration of AES-Chivor for that year from 485 MW to 304 MW. Our company and other hydro generators initiated litigation for this reason. The current remuneration for 2006 is 290 MW.

CREG has released an outline of a proposal that would replace this administrative process for firm capacity payments, and instead have a more market basedenergy level does not exceed system in which capacity payments would be determined through auctions of energy options. CREG has not yet released sufficient detail of this new proposal to evaluate the effect it would have on the Company.demand.

Bilateral contracts between a generator and suppliers are treated as financial instruments which are settled by the Market Administrator. These contracts are normally either “take or pay” or “take and pay” agreements, and normally have a term of one to three years. There is no regulatory obligation for an electricity supplier to hedge its consumers’ demand, and the negotiation of energy contracts between generators and suppliers for unregulated customers is unrestricted. The contracts to supply energy to regulated (small) consumers must be assigned by the Load Servicing Entities (“LSE”) through a public bidding process to determine the lowest offer.

Dominican Republic.Republic.   The electricity sector in the Dominican Republic has evolved from a state owned system, to a reform period from 1997 through 1999 which was regulated by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce without an overall plan, and finally, with the passage of the General Electricity Law No. 125-01 was passed on July 26, 2001, and its regulations, into a system with more concise rules, along with new2001. New institutions were created to formulate energy policy and regulate the sector, governed byincluding the Energy National Commission (“CNE”) and the Superintendancy of Electricity (“SIE”). However, some of the new resolutions adopted by SIE are in conflict with the regulations created by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce prior to enactment of Law 125-01.

During 2004, the Dominican Republic was shaken by a severe economic, financial and political crisis, caused mainly by the status of the public finances and the bankruptcy of the three main commercial banks. Although the electricity sector has been vulnerable for years, it was this economic downturn and an increase in fuel prices that essentially caused a financial crisis in the Dominican Republic electrical sector. Specifically, the inability to pass through higher fuel prices and the costs of devaluation led to a gap between collections at the distribution companies and the amounts required to pay generators for electricity generated. There are no assurances that these issues will be resolved in favor of the Company.

The election of a new presidential administration in August 2004 has been accompanied by progress towards addressing the crisis in the electricity sector. Negotiations have intensified between the government, the multilateral lending and development agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank and the private electricity sector. The key issues that are the focus of these negotiations include (i) the failure to provide for full pass throughpass-through of the costs of electricity supply to consumers; (ii) the failure of the regulator to follow through on subsidy commitments, which has put the distribution companies in the position of effectively financing portions of the subsidy programs; and (iii) the fiscal deficit of the government thatof the Dominican Republic which requires multilateral lending to reconstitute the sector.

During 2005,2006, the Dominican Republic government has been paying both the subsidies and its own energy bills on time; the tariff has been modified to recognize the fuel generation basket, and there is increased support for fraud prosecution. Despite this improvement over prior years, the electricity sector has not completely recovered from the financial crisis of 2004. Last year it needed more then US$500 million to cover the current operations, and for 2006 it will need another2007 an amount of US$500400 million has been included in the budget, which indicates that the electricity sector in the Dominican Republic remains fiscally unstable, so that additional reforms may be needed.

In December 2006, the Executive branch sent to congress a bill modifying the General Electricity Law. The bill criminalizes theft of electricity and simplifies the process that the Distribution companies must


follow in order to detect and document fraud in the electric networks. The legislation will be considered and could be approved in the first quarter of 2007.

El Salvador.Salvador.   In 1996, the government of El Salvador began the process of privatizing, modernizing and restructuring El Salvador’s electricity industry in order to create an open and competitive electricity sector with the support of strategic foreign investors. To accomplish its goal, the government created a new regulatory framework through the enactment of the Electricity Law in October of 1996, as subsequently


amended in June 2003. The Electricity Law regulates the generation, transmission, marketing, distribution and supply of electricity in El Salvador and provided the basis for private sector participation and competition in the Salvadoran energy sector, the unbundling of electricity generation, transmission and distribution, the privatization of electricity distribution and generation assets and the creation of a transparent regulatory structure.

From 1986 to 1998 CEL, a Salvadoran state-owned entity, generated, transmitted and distributed all of El Salvador’s electricity on a monopoly basis. All planning, regulatory and executive functions concerning electricity generation, transmission and distribution were vested in CEL. Under the Electricity Law, an independent regulator, SIGET,Superindencia General de Electricidad y Telecomunicaciones (“SIGET”), was established, and CELthe country’s pubic electric company, Comisión Ejecutiva Hidroeléctrica de río Lempa (“CEL”) was required to reorganize its generation, transmission and distribution assets to facilitate privatization. CEL separated its generation, transmission and distribution activities from one another and further divided its generation and distribution activities into operationally independent companies for purposes of privatization.

El Salvador has five electricity distribution companies, created from CEL’s distribution assets, which were privatized in 1998.companies. AES controls four of these five distribution companies: CAESS, CLESA, EEO, and DEUSEM. In preparation for their privatization, each of these companies absorbed elements of CEL’sDEUSEM, which include rural electrification activities that were situated near their networks.the networks of these companies.

The government has recently adopted certain revisions and adjustments to the regulatory system created by the Electricity Law, and additional modifications are under consideration. The government is studying how to further separate the activities of CEL and ETESAL,El Salvador Electricity Transmission Company (“ETESAL”), the transmission company that is owned by CEL, with the goal of privatizing ETESAL. In addition, new Salvadoran regulations have been recently issued aimed at facilitating the entry of electricity traders into the electricity market and improve the transparency of the pricing signals in the wholesale market.

In June 2003, the government amended the Electricity Law to grant greater regulatory authority to SIGET and to create a compensatory fund in the wholesale market to promote stability in the price of energy on the spot market. SIGET has recently prepared norms and guidelines in the form of a manual, which will set minimum standards for electricity distribution companies for system design, distribution losses and costs, as well as service quality and reliability. In addition, as part of the Company’s regular upcoming five-year tariff review process, SIGET is reviewing the characteristics of the demand curve for each of the Company’s electricity distribution networks, in order to be able to better analyze and review the Company’s proposed tariffs.

During 2005, the Ministry of Economy (“Ministerio de Economía”) proposed revising the dispatch rules for El Salvador’s electricity market from a bidding to an economic dispatch basis. If this reform is adopted in the future, it may adversely affect the Company’s ability to continue to generate margins on the energy it buys and sells for its customers. The proposal remains under discussion.

Panama.In 1995, Panama initiated the reform of its electricity sector with the passage of legislation allowing private participation in power projects. This was followed in 1996 by the Public Services Regulatory Agency Law, which established new institutional arrangements for the regulation of public services, including electricity. In 1997, the Electricity Law was passed, calling for the restructuring of the Instituto de Recursos Hidráulicos y Electrificación (“IRHE”), the Panamanian government agency responsible for electricity generation, transmission and distribution. IRHE was divided into three distribution companies, four generation companies and one transmission company for privatization.

In 1998, the country’s three distribution companies were privatized, and were each granted 15-year concessions. The same year, the four generation companies were privatized, with the hydropower


generators receiving 50-year concessions granting the use of water, and the thermal power generators receiving 40-year licenses. The transmission company remains under state ownership.

The dispatch of the system is the responsibility of the Centro Nacional de Despacho (“CND”), which is part of the transmission company, Ente Regulador de los Servicios Públicos (“ETESA” or the “Regulator”). There is a surcharge levied on revenues in the system to cover the administrative costs of the CND and ETESA, which helps to promote the Regulator’s political independence. The regulatory framework establishes the operation of generation plants on a merit-order dispatch basis. Dispatch priority is determined based on audited variable operating costs with the last unit dispatched determining the marginal cost of the system. Hydroelectric plants are dispatched in such a way as to optimize the use of water.

The Panamanian electric system operates with both contract and spot markets. At the time of privatization, the distribution companies were assigned Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs”) with each of the generators, sufficient to meet the generators’ peak energy demand requirements. The cost of electricity with respect to spot market purchases and PPAs approved by the electric industry regulator (including initial and new contracts) are a direct pass-through to residential and industrial users. The system is designed to preserve the financial health of the distribution companies and the entire electricity sector. Distribution companies are required to contract 100% of their annual energy requirements (although they buycan self-generate up to 15% of their demand), reducing uncertainty for generators and sellconsumers. Tariffs were increased in 2003 and 2004, and the government subsidized a 2005 tariff increase.

North America

United States.The federal government regulates wholesale power markets and transmission facilities in most of the continental U.S., while each of the fifty states regulates retail electricity markets and distribution. Over the past decade, there have been a number of federal and state legislative and regulatory actions that have altered how energy markets are regulated. A series of regulatory policies have been adopted in the United States by both the federal government and the individual states that encourage competition in wholesale and retail electricity markets.

Federal Regulation of Electricity

The FERC has ratemaking jurisdiction and other authority with respect to interstate wholesale sales and transmission of electric energy under the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) and with respect to certain interstate sales, transportation and storage of natural gas under the Natural Gas Act. In 1996, the FERC issued Order # 888, which mandated the functional separation of generation and transmission operations and required utilities to provide open access to their transmission systems. Each utility under the FERC’s jurisdiction was required to file an Open Access Transmission Tariff. In 2000, the FERC issued Order # 2000, which established the functions and characteristics of Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) as a means to ensure independent administration of the open access policy and to help increase investment in transmission infrastructure. On a regional basis RTOs assume functions traditionally handled by individual utilities, such as transmission access, security, coordination and planning. RTOs have been created and currently administer the interconnected transmission system in a number of the markets in which AES owns electric generation such as California and the Midwest.

Beginning in the fall of 2001, regulatory officials in the United States began to re-examine the nature and pace of deregulation of electricity markets. This re-examination was primarily the result of extreme price volatility and energy shortages in California and portions of the western markets during the period from May 2000 through June 2001. The conclusions reached in this re-examination have not been uniform, but rather have differed from state to state and between the federal government and the states themselves. Thus, a number of states have advocated against restructuring and abandoned any efforts to proceed with


deregulation of retail markets, while the FERC has continued its efforts to enhance “open access” electric transmission and enhance competition in bulk power (wholesale) markets, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. This has led to a number of confrontations and legal proceedings between the FERC and the states over jurisdiction. The Company believes that over the next decade the United States will continue to resemble a “patchwork quilt” of differing regulatory policies at the retail level.

The Federal government, through regulations promulgated by the FERC, has primary jurisdiction over wholesale electricity markets and transmission services. Since 1986, the FERC has approved market based rate authority for many providers of wholesale generation, and the mix of market players since then has shifted toward non-utility entities, generally referred to as Independent Power Producers (“IPPs”), whose rates are negotiated rather than based on costs. The FERC has issued a number of orders that increase the reporting requirements of entities requesting market based rate authority. In May 2006, the FERC issued a rulemaking concerning the four criteria examined in granting market based rate authority and the resulting regulations may result in a somewhat more stringent analysis for obtaining such authority. Recently utilities have begun supplying their customers.own generation again, through affiliate contracts, acquisition of distressed assets and traditional utility construction. These assets are generally included in base rate, and the building of generation by utilities represents a move back to traditional cost of service ratemaking regulation.

On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPAct 2005”). The legislation repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act (“PUHCA of 1935”) and replaced it with the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (“PUHCA of 2005”), which became effective on February 8, 2006. The repeal of the PUHCA of 1935 removed utility holding companies from the jurisdiction of the SEC and greatly reduced the financial, organizational and line of business restrictions imposed on utility holding companies. The PUHCA of 2005 increases federal and state access to books and records, but does not restrict mergers and acquisitions of non-contiguous utilities as did the previous law.

Under Section 203 of the FPA, as amended by EPAct 2005, the FERC has increased authority to review mergers and acquisitions, including acquisitions of foreign utility companies. However, the FERC has issued regulations that give a holding company that owns a transmitting utility or an electric utility company and has captive U.S. customers (such as AES) blanket authority to acquire a foreign utility company upon making a notice filing containing specific certifications with respect to the protection of such customers from the effects of the acquisition.

EPAct 2005 also provides the FERC with new authority to certify an Electric Reliability Organization (“ERO”) that will set mandatory reliability standards for the U.S. grid. On April 4, 2006 the National Energy Regulatory Commission (“NERC”) filed an application for certification as the ERO and a petition for approval of 102 Reliability Standards. The NERC was certified as the ERO on July 20, 2006, and the FERC initiated a rulemaking to review and approve the Reliability Standards. Although NERC has not historically had authority to mandate compliance with reliability standards, utilities generally choose to voluntarily comply with the standards. The new legislation gives the ERO the ability to create mandatory standards and would grant the ERO authority to enforce these standards through the issuance of financial penalties.

Finally, EPAct 2005 amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”) and instructs the FERC to promulgate regulations to implement the amendments. Pursuant to this directive the FERC has issued a final rule that: (i) prescribes new restrictive criteria that new cogeneration facilities must meet in order to be designated as qualifying facilities (“QFs”) under PURPA; (ii) removes the restrictions on ownership of QFs by an entity that is primarily engaged in the generation or sale of electric power; and (iii) for new QFs eliminates certain regulatory exemptions that QFs previously received. On October 20, 2006, the FERC issued a final rule that effectively removes the requirement that utilities enter into new contracts to purchase energy and capacity produced by QFs having capacity greater than 20 MW


if the utilities are located within the control areas of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (“Midwest ISO”), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., ISO New England, Inc., the New York Independent System Operators or ERCOT. Utilities located in other regions of the United States must file a request to be relieved of the purchase obligation and the FERC will decide on a case by case basis whether QFs have access to competitive wholesale markets, and therefore, no longer require a mandatory buyer. We believe that the new rule will not have a material impact on the Company’s existing contracts.

On September 21, 2006, the FERC conditionally approved the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) tariff filing to reflect Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade (MRTU). The new market design is scheduled to go into effect on November 1, 2007 and will include location based marginal pricing and a financially binding day-ahead energy market. The Company believes that the MRTU will not have a material impact on its existing facilities due to long-term contracts that remain in place. In August 2000, the FERC announced an investigation into the organized California wholesale power markets in order to determine whether rates were just and reasonable. Further investigations involved alleged market manipulation. See Item 3.Legal Proceedings in this Form 10-K.

In addition to the FERC regulation described above, IPL is subject to regulation by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”) as to its services and facilities, the valuation of property, the construction, purchase, or lease of electric generating facilities, the classification of accounts, rates of depreciation, retail rates and charges, the issuance of securities (other than evidences of indebtedness payable less than twelve months after the date of issue), the acquisition and sale of public utility properties or securities and certain other matters.

IPL’s tariff rates for electric service to retail customers (basic rates and charges) are set and approved by the IURC after public hearings. Such proceedings, which have occurred at irregular intervals, involve IPL, the staff of the IURC, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor and other interested consumer groups and customers. Pursuant to statute the IURC is to conduct a periodic review of the basic rates and charges of all utilities at least once every four years.

The majority of IPL customers are served pursuant to retail tariffs that provide for the monthly billing or crediting to customers of increases or decreases, respectively, in the actual costs of fuel consumed from estimated fuel costs embedded in basic rates, subject to certain restrictions on the level of operating income. In addition IPL’s rate authority provides for a return on IPL’s investment and recovery of the depreciation and operation and maintenance expenses associated with the nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) compliance construction program and its multipollutant plan.

IPL participates in the restructured wholesale energy market operated by the Midwest ISO. The implementation of this restructured market marks a significant change in the way IPL buys and sells electricity and schedules generation. Prior to the restructured market, IPL dispatched its generation and purchased power resources directly to meet its demands. In the restructured market IPL offers its generation and bids its demand into the market on an hourly basis. The Midwest ISO settles these hourly offers and bids based on location based marginal prices or LMPs, i.e., pricing for energy at a given location based on a market clearing price that takes into account physical limitations, generation and demand throughout the Midwest ISO region. The Midwest ISO evaluates the market participants’ energy injections into, and withdrawals from, the system to economically dispatch the entire Midwest ISO system on a five-minute basis. Market participants are able to hedge their exposure to congestion charges, which result from constraints on the transmission system, with certain Financial Transmission Rights, or “FTRs.” Participants are allocated FTRs each year and are permitted to purchase additional FTRs. As anticipated and in keeping with similar market start-ups around the world, LMPs are volatile, and there are process, data, and model issues requiring editing and enhancement. IPL and other market participants have raised concerns with certain Midwest ISO transactions and the resolution of these items could impact our results of operations.

39




European Union.Europe & Africa

European Union.   European Union (“EU”) legislation ismember states are required to be implemented in each of theimplement EU member states,legislation, although there is a degree of disparity as to how such legislation is implemented and the pace of implementation in the respective member states. EU legislation covers a range of topics which impact on the energy sector, including market liberalization and environmental legislation. The Company has subsidiaries which operate existing generation businesses in a number of countries which are member states of the European Union (EU),EU, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. The Company also has subsidiaries which are in the process of constructing a generation plant in Bulgaria. Bulgaria became a member of the EU as of January 2007 and will, upon accession to the EU, be subject to EU legislation.

The principles of market liberalization in the EU electricity and gas markets were introduced under the Electricity and Gas Directives (Directive 1996/92/EC and Directive 1998/30/EC, respectively). In 2005, the European Commission (“EC”), the legislative and administrative body of the EU, launched a sector-wide inquiry into the European gas and electricity markets. In the context of the electricity market, the inquiry has to date focused on identifying problems related to price formation in the electricity wholesale markets


and the role of long termlong-term agreements as a possible barrier to entry with a view to improving the competitive situation. The Hungarian Competition Authority launched a parallel inquiry into the national electricity and gas market and announced its preliminary findings in late 2005. These preliminary findings identified long termlong-term contracts as a potential source of competition concern, in addition to other obstacles, such as having a single power buyer, MVMthe Hungarian Power Companies LTD (MVM). The European CommissionEC has commenced a formal investigation into long-term power purchase contracts in Hungary, including the long-term power purchase contract entered into between AES Tisza Eromu Kft (“EC”AES Tisza”) is presently analyzingand the resultsstate owned electricity wholesaler, MVM. See “Hungary” below, for details of its inquiry, and has yet to decide what formal steps if any they will take with respect to their preliminary analyses. It is therefore too early to predict the concrete impact ofthis investigation. In addition, the EC sector inquiry orhas launched an independent investigation into alleged abusive practices on the Hungarian Competition Authority’s inquiry into AES businesses in the EU.part of MVM.

The EC has also introduced environmental legislation which impacts the electricity sector in general and includes:

·       The EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (1996/61/EC) (“IPPC Directive”) which requires member states to prevent or reduce pollution from a range of installations including electricity generation stations and introduces a permit regime to ensure the prevention or reduction of pollution from such installations.

·       The Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC) (“LCPD”) which introduced a regime for the reduction of emissions sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates from large combustion plants, with increased restrictions coming into effect in two phases from 2008 and 2016, respectively.

·       The Renewables Directive (2001/77/EC) which deals with the promotion of electricity generated from renewable sources and sets a target of 12% of electricity consumed in the EU to be generated from renewable sources by 2010.

·       The EU Emissions Trading Directive (2003/87/EC) which, amongstamong other things, established the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (“EUETS”) in respect of emissions of carbon dioxide effective January 1, 2005.

Progress in the implementation of the directives referred to above varies from member state to member state. AES generation businesses in each member state will be required to comply with the relevant measures taken to implement the directives. See “Air Emissions” below, for a description of these Directives.


Hungary.Hungary.In 2004, in connection with the accession of Hungary as a member state of the European Union,EU, the Hungarian government provided notification to the European CommissionEC of certain legislative arrangements concerning compensation to the state owned electricity wholesaler, MVM. The CommissionEC conducted a preliminary investigation to determine whether or not any alleged government aid was provided through MVM to its suppliers which was incompatible with the common market. The Commission hasEC decided to open a formal investigation.investigation in 2005. AES Tisza is not a named party to the investigation, but could be adversely affected in the event that the Commission was to concludeEC concludes that AES Tisza wasis one of the beneficiaries of unlawful state aid by virtue of its power purchase arrangements with MVM. As an interested party, AES Tisza will have the opportunity to makehas made submissions to the CommissionEC in relation to the investigation. If the EC reaches a formal conclusion that the long-term power purchase arrangements are contrary to applicable EU law, it can require the Hungarian authorities to recover any aid involved. It is for the Hungarian authorities to execute the EC’s decision in accordance with national law. The authorities may then seek to revise the contracts and/or require the repayment of certain funds received by generators pursuant to the contracts. It is not currently too earlyknown whether the underlying contracts, including the contract with AES Tisza, will be revised or terminated or what reimbursement and/or compensation will be payable in connection with their revision or termination. Although the EC has not yet completed its formal investigation or published its conclusions, the Commissioner for Competition has indicated informally that she considers the long-term power purchase arrangements to predictbe contrary to applicable EU law and has encouraged the outcome ofHungarian government to terminate the formal investigation.long-term power purchase arrangements.

In early 2006, the Hungarian government enacted legislation to amend the Hungarian Electricity Act (Act 110 of 2001) to enable, amongstamong other things, the application of regulatoryadministrative pricing to the sale of electricity by generators to the state owned utility wholesaler, MVM. No implementingImplementing legislation or regulations have yet been enactedwas subsequently issued in November 2006 re-introducing administrative pricing which purports to impose a regulated price on the sale of electricity by generators, including AES Tisza, to the public utility sector. The regulated price is lower than that specified in the existing long-term power purchase agreement between AES Tisza and itMVM. AES Tisza is therefore too early to predictin the process of assessing the implications of this legislation, including the impact on its current power purchase and financing arrangements and the ability of this legislation.

30




India.In 2003,AES Tisza to challenge the Governmentre-introduction of India enacted Electricity Act 2003 (“New Act”) to establish a framework for a multi-seller-multi-buyer model foradministrative pricing by the electricity industry, and introduced significant change in India’s electricity sector. These changes included:Hungarian government.

·Kazakhstan       Generation, excluding hydro and nuclear, is delicensed. Generation companies can sell power to a customer of its choice;

·.          Transmission, immediate non-discriminatory open access is allowed;

·       Distribution, open access will be implemented in phases;

·       Trading is recognized as a licensed activity; and

·       All states are required to establish an electricity regulator.

In March 2004, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”) issued terms of conditions for tariff determination for generation and transmission. In early 2004, the Government of India issued Guidelines for Determination of Tariff by Bidding Process for Procurement of Power by Distribution Licensees. In February 2005, the Government of India came out with the National Electricity Policy and in January 2006 published the National Tariff Policy (together “Policy”).

The Policy established deadlines to implement provisions of the New Act: June 2005 was the deadline for the state regulators to notify regulation for open access to 1 MW; June 2006 is the deadline for technology upgrades to facilitate open access in transmission; and March 2007 is the deadline for Electricity Regulatory Commission of the respective States (“SERC”) to ensure energy audits.

The Policy recommends Multi-Year Tariffs (“MYT”) but without any deadline for implementation. The Policy also advocates rationalization of tariffs but without focusing on removal or reduction of cross subsidies. The Policy recognizes the need for private investment to meet full demand for power by 2012, but does not specify specific measures to attract private capital.

India’s power sector is regulated by CERC at the national level and by SERCs at the state level. CERC is responsible for interstate transmission and generation for more than one state. SERCs are responsible for electricity and intra-state transmission tariffs. The Government of India assists states in arranging financing for restructuring of state utilities for financial turnaround. However, actual implementation of the reform process is entirely contingent on the state governments and regulators. Although the New Act and the Policy advocates regulators be independent, and develop transparency and political insulation, the regulatory environment and risks could be substantially different across States. It is not clear whether existing and concluded power purchase agreements are subject to re-opening by regulatory bodies. If re-opened, the review could have an adverse impact on OPGC, our generation facility in India.

Kazakhstan.The Kazakhstan Parliament and Government havehas implemented a series of regulatory normative acts to encourage competition in wholesale and retail electricity markets.

Under the present regulatory structure, the electricity generation and supply sector in Kazakhstan is mainly regulated by the government, acting through the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources and its committees (the “Ministry”), the Committee for protection of competition of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (the “Committee”) and the Agency for regulation of the natural monopolies (the “Agency”), that have. Each has the necessary authority for the supervision of the Kazakhstan power industry. However, because of certain contradictions between different regulations and the absence of a clear demarcation between rights and responsibilities of the Ministry, the Committee and the Agency, there is some uncertainty in the regulatory environment of the power sector.

The Ministry’s main function is to supervise the appropriate implementation of the normativeElectricity Law (Law of Kazakhstan “On Power Industry” No. 588-II dated July 9, 2004 ) and sub-normative acts,other rules and regulations in the power sector, ensure the efficiency of the wholesale and retail power markets of electricity, and ensure reliability of power supply through technical monitoring and licensing requirements.

The Committee’s authority arises under the efficientCompetition Law (Law of Kazakhstan “On competition and economic supplymonopoly activity restriction” No. 173-III dated July 7, 2006), which authorized the antimonopoly body to issue approval in connection with large mergers and acquisitions, to monitor markets for monopolistic activity and competition protection and to control tariffs of energy to consumers by monitoring market conditions and ensuring adherence to market rules by market participants. The Ministry’s core areasdominant entities in different sectors of responsibility that directly relate to AES’s businesses in Kazakhstan are: competitive economic regulation of theeconomy including wholesale and retail market of heat and electricity supply, legislative regulation of the businessesmarkets.


within the scope of normative rules and regulations, and consultative assistance of the businesses within the authority granted by the normative acts.

The newly created Committee is an authorized state agency which exercises control over monopolistic activity and the protection of the competition on the wholesale and retail markets of the electricity supply and to coordinate and approve tariffs. The Agency’s main function, as is defined in the Natural Monopoly Law (Law of Kazakhstan “On natural monopolies” No. 272-I dated July 9, 1998), is to approve and regulate the tariffs of the “naturals monopolists,” the tariffs estimation“natural monopolists” (including heat generation, power transmission and discount policy, approval of the compensation tariff anddistribution), to supervise the activity of the natural monopolists with respect to their tariffs policy.investment policy and quality of services and provide customer protection.

Kazakhstan has a wholesale power market, where generators and customers are free to sign contracts at negotiated prices. Power generating entities and retail supply companies are required to participate in the centralized power trade with some minimum required volumes set by the Ministry (up to 30% for generation companies and up to 50% for retail supply companies). State-owned entities and natural monopolies are obligated to buy power through tenders and centralized trading. The wholesale transmission grid is owned by state-owned company KEGOC, which also acts as the system operator.

Starting in 2004, Kazakhstan introduced a retail market, as a result of which distribution companies had to transfer retail power supply functions to newly created retail companies. During a transition period retail prices are controlled by the Committee, though the government program resumes introduction of competitive retail pricing in the near future.

Two hydro plants which are under AES concession, Kazakhstan’s Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydro Plant (“UK Hydro”) and Kazakhstan’s Shulbinsk Hydro Plant (“Shulbinsk Hydro”), together with AES Kazakhstan Ust-Kamenogorsk CHP Hydro Plant (“UK CHP”), together withall located in the two hydro plants we operate on a concession basis, Ust-Kamenogorsk (“UK Hydro”) and Shulbinsk (“Shulbinsk Hydro”), have been under jurisdictional control ofEastern Kazakhstan region, are recognized by the Agency since 2003Committee as dominant entities in the regional market because their aggregated share in the electricity supply commodity market in the Eastern Kazakhstan oblastregion is 70%. As such, theseThese businesses are required to notify the Agencycompetition authority about the futureany power price increases for monopolistic commodities (works, services)regional customers. Nurenergoservice LLP and the reasons for such price increase. Currently, the Agency is authorized to regulate prices, and to date, all requested price increases have been deemed to be excessive by the Agency.

Power generating entities (UK CHP and our hydro power plants)DostykEnergo LLP are required totwo AES trading companies that participate in the centralized tradeKazakhstan power markets, both of electric power. Upwhich may face regulation by the Committee relating to 30%resale of generated electricity is supposedpower to be sold via these centralized auctions. Since UK CHP,customers located in Eastern Kazakhstan.

In February 2007, the Committee initiated administrative proceedings against UK Hydro and Shulbinsk Hydro are deemed to have dominating positions (monopolies), they must get Agency approval for price increases one month in advance, and are therefore disqualified from participating in the centralized auctions (since prices are not set in advance).

Two of our companies that participate in both the wholesale and retail markets as energy sellers areallegedly using Nurenergoservice LLP and AES Kazakhstan LLP. Although they are not regulated by the antimonopoly legislation or the legislation on the natural monopolies, due to their indirect affiliation with AES generation companies inincrease power prices for Eastern Kazakhstan AES Kazakhstan LLP and Nurenergoservice LLP comply with thecustomers in alleged violation of Kazakhstan’s antimonopoly legislation when entering into contracts with our generators. During the last two years there were several attempts by the antimonopoly bodies to recognize some contracts as invalid on the grounds of artificially increasing tariffs of the generators by using AES Kazakhstan as an intermediary company.law. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings in this Form 10-K

Mexico.Ukraine.   In 1992, the Electric Energy Public Service Law (Ley del Servicio Público de Energía Eléctrica) (the “Energy Law”) was amended to allow national and foreign private investment participation in the energy generation segment through the following independent-generation forms: self-supply, cogeneration, small production, independent production for sale to the Federal Electricity Commission (Comisión Federal de Electricidad) (“CFE”) and generation for export derived from cogeneration, independent production and small production.

The government entities involved in power generation projects are the Ministry of Energy (Secretaría de Energía), which is in charge of developing the relevant policies on energy matters, the Energy Regulating Commission (Comisión Reguladora de Energía) (“CRE”), which acts as the sector regulator and the CFE, which provides the electric energy public service and owns and operates the national electric system.

The CRE has the authority to grant or revoke permits and authorizations required by private investors to generate electricity in Mexico. The CRE must approve tariffs for the sale of energy to CFE for public distribution, as well as the prices for the transmission and delivery of electricity.

The federal government intends to promote private participation in power generating plants, and to this end has allowed independent power producers to present bids for the purchase of capacity and power. The government seeks what it deems to be a reasonable balance between private and public investment in generating plants.

Independent power production in Mexico has increased considerably in the past years. In 2002, 7% of the national total of electric power was produced by independent producers, in 2003, the percentage


increased to 19% and in 2005 to 33%. Installed capacity in independent power production plants has also increased, as has reserve capacity which has grown over 40% in the last six years.

Oman.   Prior to May 2005, the Ministry of Housing, Electricity and Water (“MHEW”) owned all electricity and related water infrastructure in Oman, with exception of a few independent power producers (“IPP”) and independent power and water producers (“IPWP”). MHEW was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the government owned generation plants and the entire transmission and distribution system. Consequent to promulgation of a Sector Law in July 2004 (effective August 2004) the electricity sector was unbundled and divided into newly created corporate entities. A new Regulatory Authority was formed to oversee the Power sector. The Authority was to promulgate rules and subsequently grant generation licenses to all the generating companies in Oman. AES Barka was granted its generation license in May 2005 after complying with all the requirements of the regulator. Furthermore, an Electricity Holding Company was also incorporated to hold the Government’s stake in its generation assets and newly unbundled companies. As a result of the unbundling, nine (9) other companies were formed, comprised of one off-taker for all the electricity and water production in Oman, one transmission company, three generation companies for the government owned plants, and four distribution companies. The existing market continues to be comprised of fully contracted entities and no change in this structure is envisioned, especially for presently contracted facilities, at this time.

Pakistan.The electricity sector in Pakistan is regulated by three main entities, namely the Water and Power Development Authority (“WAPDA”), the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (“NEPRA”) and the Private Power Infrastructure Board (“PPIB”).

WAPDA acts as a power off-taker. In 1992, the government of Pakistan approved WAPDA’s Strategic Plan for the Privatisation of the Pakistan Power Sector. This Plan sought to meet three critical goals: a) enhance capital formation, b) improve efficiency and rationalize prices, and c) move over time towards full competition by providing the greatest possible role for the private sector through privatization. A critical element of the Strategic Plan was the creation and establishment of a Regulatory Authority to oversee the restructuring process and to regulate monopolistic services. In December 1997, The Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, became effective.

NEPRA was created to introduce transparent and judicious economic regulation, based on sound commercial principles, to the electric power sector of Pakistan. NEPRA’s main responsibilities are to: a) issue licenses for generation, transmission and distribution of electric power; b) establish and enforce standards to ensure quality and safety of operation and supply of electric power to consumers; c) approve investment and power acquisition programs of the utility companies; and d) determine tariffs for generation, transmission and distribution of electric power.

NEPRA regulates the electric power sector to promote a competitive structure for the industry and to ensure the co-ordination of reliable and adequate supply of electric power in the future. By law, NEPRA is mandated to ensure that the interests of the investor and the customer are protected through judicious decisions based on transparent commercial principles and that the sector moves towards a competitive environment.

PPIBwas established in 1994 to offer support by the government of Pakistan to the private sector in implementing power projects. PPIB provides a “One-Window” facility to investors in the private power sector by acting as a one stop organization on behalf of all ministries, departments and agencies of the Government of Pakistan in matters relating to developing and expediting the progress of power projects in the private sector, either through competitive bidding or through proposals submitted by interested parties. PPIB’s functions include the following:

a)               to negotiate the interconnection agreements and provide support in negotiating power purchase agreements, fuel supply agreements, water use licenses, and other related agreements;


b)              to provide guarantees to independent power producers for the performance of government of Pakistan entities;

c)               to prepare, conduct and monitor litigation and international arbitration for, and on behalf of Pakistan for private power projects and proposals; and

d)              to assist NEPRA in determining and approving tariffs for new private power projects.

Panama.In 1995, Panama initiated the reform of its electricity sector with the passage of legislation allowing private participation in power projects. This was followed in 1996 by the Public Services Regulatory Agency Law, which established new institutional arrangements for the regulation of public services, including electricity. In 1997, the Electricity Law was passed, calling for theUkraine began restructuring of the Instituto de Recursos Hidráulicos y Electrificación (“IRHE”), the Panamanian government agency responsible for electricity generation, transmission and distribution. IRHE was divided into three distribution companies, four generation companies and one transmission company for privatization.

In 1998, the three distribution companies were privatized, and were each granted 15-year concessions. The same year, the four generation companies were privatized, with the hydropower generators receiving 50-year concessions granting the use of water, and the thermal power generators receiving 40-year licenses. The transmission company remains under state ownership.

The dispatch of the system is the responsibility of the Centro Nacional de Despacho (“CND”), which is part of the transmission company, Ente Regulador de los Servicios Públicos (“ETESA” or the “Regulator”). There is a surcharge levied on revenues in the system to cover the administrative costs of the CND and ETESA, which helps to promote the Regulator’s political independence.

The regulatory framework establishes the operation of generation plants on a merit-order dispatch basis. Dispatch priority is determined based on audited variable operating costs with the last unit dispatched determining the marginal cost of the system. Hydroelectric plants are dispatched in such a way as to optimize the use of water.

The Panamanian electric system operates with both contract and spot markets. At the time of privatization, the distribution companies were assigned PPAs with each of the generators, sufficient to meet the generators’ peak energy demand requirements. The cost of electricity with respect to spot market purchases and PPAs approved by the electric industry regulator (including initial and new contracts) are a direct pass-through to residential and industrial users. The system is designed to preserve the financial health of the distribution companies and the entire electricity sector. Distribution companies are required to contract 100% of their annual energy requirements (although they can self-generate up to 15% of their demand), reducing uncertainty for generators and consumers.

In the recent years, certain changes have been made to this system. The Panama Canal Authority, a government company, is competing in the electricity generation market under different rules that give the Canal Authority advantages over private generators. The Regulator is trying to put caps on electricity prices and the distribution companies are trying to have the 15% cap on generation removed. Tariffs were increased in 2003 and 2004, which prompted the government to subsidize the 2005 tariff increase. Although the government decided to halt these subsidies in 2006, they have recently suspended the scheduled tariff increase for 90 days, while the government reviews a proposed bill to modify the law.

Qatar.   In the State of Qatar there is no regulatory authority. Generation licenses are granted by the State of Qatar.


The Government is moving steadily away from the former pattern of electricity supply being seen as the function of a State Ministry. The creation of Qatar Electricity and Water Company (“QEWC”) in 1998 was the first key step in this process. More recently, the former Ministry of Electricity and Water has been transformed into a state owned Corporation called the Qatar General Electricity and Water Corporation (“KAHRAMAA”).

It is envisaged that KAHRAMAA will continue to be responsible for the bulk purchase of power from QEWC and other generators, while also managing the control and dispatch of the national grid and local reticulation systems.

Ukraine.Restructuring of the Ukrainian electrical energy sector began in 1995. Until that time the electrical energy sector was functioning asfrom a single vertically integrated system operated by the Ministry of Energy and Electrification.Electrification to a more regionalized system. In April 1995, the President of Ukraine issued Decree No. 282/95 “On the Restructuring in Electrical Energy Complex of Ukraine,” by which the vertically integratedrevised system was separated into generation, local distribution and high voltage transmission. The localtransmission were removed from the vertically integrated system. Local distribution and supply services were placed into 27 regionally defined operating companies (called “oblenergos”).companies. The Ministry of Energy and Electrification remained as a policy agency and also controlled shares (assets) of state joint stock companies.

In March 1995, the The President of Ukraine also created the National Regulatory Energy Commission (“NREC”), the main purpose ofNERC, which was to ensure the effective functioning of the electric energy sector and the formation of an electric energy market.

InSince 1996, NREC approved the Wholesale Electricity Market (“WEM”) Members Agreement. AsUkrainian energy market operates in a result, transactions for power andwholesale energy salesmarket model, under which AES Ukraine procures electricity from the generating companies towholesale energy market (hereinafter “WEM”) at the supply companies were structured through a wholesale electricity market modeled on the early versionhourly spot process. One of the British power pool.

The Law of Ukraine “On the Energy Sector” adopted in 1997, became the first legislative act regulating electricity generation, transmission, supply and consumption, competition, customers’ rights protection and energy safety. In June 2000, amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Energy Sector” were passed, which obligated customers to make cash paymentspre-conditions for consumed electricity into special bank accounts. Allocations of funds from the special bank accounts to sector entities are made based on a fund allocation procedure issued by the NREC. By the end of 2004, cash collections had recovered to approximately 97% from 27% in 2000.

In 2002, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved the Concept of WEM Development, laying out foundations for further market development in three stages over several years, leading to replacementprivatization of the current “single buyer” market model with bilateral contracts between suppliers and generators, and between end-users and generators, as well as a balancing market. In order to improve the overall investment climate, the Concept also addressed power sector problems such as administrative interferencedistribution companies in market operations and cash flows, cross-subsidization through retail and wholesale tariff structures, non-payment and debt accumulation. In June 2004, a special commission created2001 set forth by the government approved a plan of measures forwas repayment to the WEM Concept Implementation. The plan set out a list of legislative acts, which havethe historical debt of companies to be drafted or amended, and responsible agencies for that work.

In 2004,privatized by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine created the national energy holding company, Energy Company of Ukraine (“ECU”), which holds state owned shares in Ukrainian thermal and hydro generation companies as well as electricity distributors, an export operator and others, with the exception of high voltage and interstate network operator. ECU controls the operational activity of those energy companies, where the government owns controlling shares, the role previously performed by Ministry for Fuel and Energy.


At the end of 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers transferred the powers for managing ECU and another state holding company—gas monopolist Naftogas—to the Ministry of Fuel and Energy (MFE) such that the MFE is now in charge of the electricity, nuclear and gas sectors.

In 2005, the NREC approved and implemented a system of uniform electricity tariffs for end users. The uniform tariff mechanism is aimed at the equalization of retail electricity prices for each non-residential customer within the same voltage-class, removing regional price differentiation across all regions of Ukraine. The new end user pricing system does not change the methodology for calculating distribution and supply tariffs. Starting in September 2005, a phased in introduction of uniform tariffs began. The system results in reallocation of part of electricity payments from customers of rural areas to those of industrial areas. Any surplus or deficiency of each distributor’s revenue that results from the uniform tariffs is offset through the wholesale market price adjustment mechanism; thus, the uniform tariff should not affect each distributor’s margin. However, the NREC has put a cap on customer tariff increases and thus, “uniform tariffs” are in reality not yet uniform country wide.

In 2005, the wholesale electricity market price increased approximately 30% due to the increase in the fuel prices in the country and changes in the pricing arrangements for thermal generating companies. Most of this growth took place in the second half of the year, after the presidential elections.

In late 2005, the government indicated it intends to increase electricity tariffs for residential customers. Such tariffs have been fixed since 1999. It is expected that tariffs will be increased some time in 2006 by at least 20% of the current level.

In 2005, a new law came into force introducing a comprehensive set of measures to resolve Ukraine’s energy sector debts problem. The law introduces (a) a set of standardized measures, such as offsets through the supply chain, receivables write-offs with no tax consequences, and payables restructuring guidelines, (b) incentives for implementation thereof and (c) an organizational framework within which implementation of the mechanisms will take place. For AES Ukraine, the new law will allow it to resolve currently existing doubtful receivables through a supply chain offset against the residual restructured payables to the wholesale energy market.

investor over 5 years following privatization. In July 2005, the government issued a special resolution forby which government debts to the population resulting from the default of Soviet banks maycould be offset against populations’ debts for purchased electricity. Fromelectricity by means of so called “checks”. This resolution allowed AES Ukraine’s perspective, this resolution will allow itUkraine to offset part of doubtful residential customers’ receivables against its payables to the WEMwholesale electric market for purchased power. In April 2006, a new Cabinet of Ministers resolution was issued to amend the “checks” scheme allowing AES Ukraine to offset the last portion of the restructured debt to wholesale market with “checks” that were collected from customers as payment of their electricity


bills. Thus, AES Ukraine paid the last portion of the restructured debt using this offset mechanism rather than cash. In 2006, AES Ukraine successfully repaid the restructured debt owed to the WEM by both of its businesses and became the first entity to be free of debt to the WEM in the country.

Due to Parliamentary elections in 2006, significant staff changes took place in the key regulatory agencies. In particular, new Minister of Energy and National Energy Regulatory Commission (“NERC”) Chairman were appointed. NERC twice authorized 25% increases in end user tariffs for residential customers in 2006. A further increase to reach the actual cost of service for residential customers is expected in 2007.

In October 2006, NERC proposed a new methodology for calculating wages and salaries which could result in an increase of about 25% in the tariff allowance for wages and salaries. NERC also initiated the idea of introducing social tariffs for residential customers whose consumption is at or below 125 kWh/month and inclining block tariffs for residential customers are scheduled for implementation in April 2007. These social tariffs are designed to improve affordability for low-use customers. In combination with the inclining block tariff, the mechanisms should create an incentive for customers to manage their consumption. In all, the hope is that these measures reduce default rates and improve overall collection rates. However, it still remains to be determined how the system will work in practice.

During 2006, the wholesale electricity market price increased approximately 17% due to increases in fuel prices and changes in the pricing arrangements for thermal generating companies.

Regulations addressing various aspects of AES Ukraine activity that have been amended and/or drafted in the course of 2006 include: (i) electricity usage codes for legal and residential customers; (ii) connection to network fee methodology; (iii) methodology for calculation of the value of illegally consumed electivity; and (iv) tender procedure to be applied by distribution and supply companies.

The Company expects that the tariff methodology applied for calculation of AES Ukraine tariffs is going to evolve in 2007 according to methodology provisions approved in 2001, as a result of which: (i) rate of return on new investment will decrease from 17% after tax to about 14% and (ii) technical and commercial loss allowances will decrease. In 2008, it is expected that (i) the rate of return on initial investment will be revised with a floor of 11%; (ii) commercial losses will not be allowed in the tariff; and (iii) the “black box” of operational expenses fixed in 2003 and inflated since then on an annual basis will be revised as well. The regulatory treatment of operational expenses in the tariff after 2008 is unclear at this point.

United Kingdom.Kingdom.   AES Kilroot in Northern Ireland is subject to the regime established by the LCPDLarge Combustion Plants Directive (“LCPD”) and will therefore be required to comply with the increased restrictions on emissions imposed under that regime. It is also required to obtain a permit under the IPPC Directive to enable it to continue to operate. AES Kilroot will be implementing modifications to ensure that the plant complies with the requirements of the LCPD and the IPPC Directive.

AES Kilroot is subject to regulation by the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation (“NIAER”). Under the terms of the generating license granted to AES Kilroot, the NIAER has the right to review and, subject to compliance with certain procedural steps and conditions, require the early termination of the long termlong-term power purchase agreements under which AES Kilroot currently supplies electricity to Northern Ireland Electricity (“NIE”) inuntil 2010.

36




Venezuela.   The Electric Service Law,On March 21, 2007, Order 2007 (Single Wholesale Market—Northern Ireland) was enacted, on December 31, 2001, contemplates the restructuring of the entire regulatory systemwhich provides for the electric sector in Venezuela by defining separationintroduction and regulation of activitiesa single wholesale electricity market for Northern Ireland and the functionsRepublic of someIreland.  The legislation grants powers to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment or NIAER for a period of two years to modify existing arrangements within the current entities that regulateelectricity market in Northern Ireland, including the sector, introducing new entities and eliminating others that had regulatory authority overpower to modify existing licenses and/or require the electric sector. The implementationamendment


or termination of existing agreements or arrangements, to allow for the creation of a single wholesale electricity market.  AES Kilroot is assessing the potential impact of this new regulatory regime has been gradual. Certain elementslegislation.

Following receipt of a complaint from Friends of the old regulatory regime will remain, particularlyEarth claiming that the tariff regime, whileexisting long-term power purchase agreements with NIE in Northern Ireland are incompatible with EU law, the EC has requested certain information from the UK authorities related to these agreements, including information pertaining to the AES Kilroot power plant and power purchase agreement in order to enable the EC to assess the complaint. DETI submitted a response to the EC on January 12, 2007. It is not possible at this stage to predict the outcome of this inquiry.

Cameroon.The law governing the Cameroonian electricity sector was passed and promulgated in December 1998, which defines the new entities and regulations to be created under the Electric Service Law are being adopted.

On December 14, 2000, the Government issued regulations which provide the mechanism for the implementationinstitutional organization of the Electric Service Law and establish the general regulatory framework for Venezuela’s electricity sector relating to, among other things,(Law no. 98/022 of 24 December 1998 governing the free market for generation, the segregation of generation, transmission, distributionelectricity sector). This law, and commercialization activities, concessions for existing distribution companiessubsequent ministerial decrees and public auctions for new distribution concessions. The Ministerio de Energia y Petroleo (“MEP”) is the principal regulatory authority of the electric sector in Venezuela. The MEP is responsible for, among other things, coordinatingorders, govern the activities of the electricity sector, sets the rates and basis for the calculation, recovery and distribution of royalties due by operators in the electricity sector, and spells out required documents and charges for the processing of applications relating to concession, license, authorization and declaration in order to carry out generation, transmission, distribution, importation, exportation and sales of electricity.

The mission of the Electricity Sector Regulatory Board (“ARSEL”) is to regulate and ensure the proper functioning of the electricity sector, maintain its economic and financial balance and safeguard the interests of electricity operators and consumers. ARSEL has the legal status of a Public Administrative Establishment and is placed under the dual technical supervisory authority of the Ministries charged with electricity and finance.

The concession agreement of July 18, 2001 between the Republic of Cameroon and AES SONEL covers a twenty-year (20) period of which the first three years constituted a grace period to permit resolution of issues existing at the time of the privatization, and all penalties were waived. In 2004, AES SONEL and the Cameroonian government bodies responsiblestarted renegotiating the concession contract. The issues included in this renegotiation process were: the quality of services requirements, the connection targets, the tariff formulation, the obligation of developing new generation capacity and the penalties regime. AES SONEL completed the renegotiation process and executed a new concession agreement on December 4, 2006.

Asia

China.In 2002, the State Council of the Chinese government promulgated the National Power Industry Framework Reform Plan (the “Reform Plan”). The Reform Plan separates generation and transmission and introduces market-driven competition into China’s electric power industry whereby generators will be required to compete in the market for administeringtheir output, with a system of competitive bidding for on-grid tariffs.

As a result of the regulatory systemReform Plan, a new industry regulator, China’s National Electricity Regulatory Commission (“China’s NERC”) was established. China’s NERC’s responsibilities include: promulgating operating rules for the electric power industry; supervising the operation of the electric power industry and safeguarding fair competition; monitoring the quality and standard of production by electric power enterprises; and issuing and administrating electric power service planning the developmentlicenses.

The ultimate adoption of the electric sector, granting concessions for distributionReform Plan may result in market and regulatory changes.

44




In April 2005, with a view to implementing the power industry reform, the National Development and Reform Commission released an interim regulation governing on-grid tariffs, along with two other regulations governing transmission activities and executingretail tariffs. All three came into effect on May 1, 2005 (“Interim Regulations”). Pursuant to the respective contractsInterim Regulations, prior to adoption of a pooling system, the on-grid tariffs shall be appraised and ratified by the pricing authorities by reference to the economic life of power generation projects and determined in conjunctionaccordance with the Ministerio de Industrias Ligeras y Comercio (“MILCO”), adopting tariff rates for distribution activities. The Electric Service Law also contemplatesprinciple of allowing independent power producers to cover reasonable costs and to obtain reasonable returns. However, the creationInterim Regulations further defined that the generation costs shall be the average costs in the industry, and reasonable returns shall be formulated on the basis of the Comisión Nacional de Energía Electrica (“CNEE”) to regulate the electricity sector in Venezuela.interest rate of China’s long-term treasury bond plus certain percentage points. The CNEE is expected to be an agency under the MEP with functional, administrative and financial autonomy. Once established,Interim Regulations will have far reaching consequences; but at this stage it is expected thatuncertain when the CNEE will gradually take over the functions now being conducted by the Fundación para el Desarrollo del Servicio Eléctrico (“FUNDELEC”). The Electric Service Law also contemplates the creation of a centralized, state-owned company, the Centro Nacional de Gestión del Servicio Eléctrico (“CNGSE”), to administer the dispatch of electricity nation-wide. The CNGSE will replace the functions that have been historically assumed by the electricity companies through the Interconnection Contract and administrated by the Oficina de Planificación del Sistema Interconectado (“OPSIS”). While the CNGSE is being organized, OPSIS will continue to operate and control the dispatch of electricity under the terms of the Interconnection Agreement.

The Electric Service Law introduces a complete revision of the manner in which electric services are to be remunerated. According to the Electric Service Law, distribution and transmission activitiesforegoing provision will be regulated and their remunerationimplemented or whether it will be governed by a tariff regime to be implemented by the MEP in conjunction with MILCO. The Electric Service Law provides that, until a new tariff regime is put in place by the MEP, the current tariff regime, set forth in Decree 368 and the 1999 Resolution, will continue to be in effect. These basic tariff rates are subject to semi-annual and monthly adjustments to reflect changes in the inflation and currency exchange rates and the prices of energy and combustible fuels, respectively. However, since price controls were established in the country in 2004, the Government has not permitted EDC to adjust its tariff rates to reflect inflation and devaluation. The adjustment factor to correct fuel and energy prices and quantities is still being implemented monthly.

The failure by the Government in future periods to allow EDC to adjust its tariff rates could have a material adverse effect on itsthe Company’s businesses, except that it appears over the longer term, there will be increasing pressure on foreign-investors to renegotiate their PPAs.

China’s central government also issued a policy allowing the on-grid tariffs to be pegged to the fuel price in the case of significant fluctuations in fuel price. Seventy percent (70%) of the increase in fuel costs may be passed to the tariff. Pursuant to this policy, the tariffs of our coal-fired facilities in China were increased in 2005 and 2006 to alleviate the escalation of fuel price.

India.India’s power sector is regulated by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”) at the national level and respective State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (“SERCs”) at the state level. CERC is responsible for regulating interstate generation, distribution and transmission, while intra-state generation, distribution and transmission are regulated by SERCs. The Government of India assists states in arranging financing for restructuring of state utilities for financial condition,turnaround and facilitates investment in power sector.

In 2003, the Government of India enacted the Electricity Act 2003 (“New Act”) to establish a framework for a multi-seller-multi-buyer model for the electricity industry and introduced significant changes in India’s electricity sector. In early 2004, the Government of India issued Guidelines for Determination of Tariff by Bidding Process for Procurement of Power by Distribution Licensees. In February 2005, the Government of India came out with the National Electricity Policy and in January 2006 published the National Tariff Policy (together “Policy”). CERC issued terms of conditions for tariff determination for inter-state generation and transmission and also notified open access for transmission.

The Policy establishes deadlines to implement different provisions of the New Act. However, the pace of actual implementation of the reform process is contingent on the respective state governments and SERCs as electricity is a “concurrent” subject in India’s constitution.

It is not clear whether existing and concluded power purchase agreements are subject to re-opening by regulatory bodies under the New Act and the Policy. If re-opened, the review could have an adverse impact on OPGC, the Company’s generation facility in India. The Electricity Appellate Tribunal is operational for dispute resolution as per New Act. A decision of Appellate Tribunal can be challenged only in the Supreme Court of India.

Alternative Energy

Under our plans for developing our Alternative Energy business, which includes wind generation, LNG re-gasification terminals, greenhouse gas emission credits and other initiatives, those businesses are, and would be, subject to complex laws and regulations and affected by changes in laws and regulations as well as changing governmental policies and regulatory actions. Many of AES’ Alternative Energy planned businesses may be significantly impacted by federal, state, and international incentives and other promotional policies relating to renewable and emerging energy technologies, carbon emissions and environmental issues. These incentives and policies are implemented and administered by a wide variety of


governmental bodies that operate at the local, state, national and transnational levels. Notably, our current operating wind energy business could be adversely impacted by any significant changes or failure by the US Congress to extend the production tax credit incentive in section 45 of title 26 of the United States Code (currently set to expire on December 31, 2008). AES’ Alternative Energy business may also be significantly impacted by laws and regulations relating to the relationships between independent or competitive providers and utilities, competitive wholesalers, and competitive retailers in markets where it operates. Laws and regulations governing these relationships are implemented and administered by a wide variety of governmental bodies that operate at the state, national and transnational levels. These multiple and often interacting factors could have a negative impact on the business and results of operations business prospects and, ultimately, its ability to satisfy its obligations. In addition, the tariff review and setting process in Venezuela is subject to political and regulatory uncertainty. No assurance can be given as to the outcome of such process or to the licensing of activities in the energy sector tariff policy formations, the development of a competitive framework, and customers’ rights protection.AES’ Alternative Energy business.

In November 2003, MEP promulgated regulations governing retail activities of distribution companies and their contractual arrangements with customers. Regulations were also promulgated to govern certain technical aspects of the services provided by distribution companies, including signal voltage and frequency and duration of interruptions. These regulations contemplate the gradual implementation by distribution companies of the systems necessary for compliance with the prescribed quality standards and assume the


application of appropriate tariff levels to cover the costs of implementing such systems. The service quality regulations seek to provide incentives for distribution companies that come into compliance with the prescribed standards and impose penalties in the event of non-fulfillment. By request of the distribution companies, the MEP has announced the intention to postpone the application of the penalty stage of the quality standards.

Government officers have also announced recently the intention to change the Electric Service Law, and the main changes expected to be proposed are a regulated generation market with competition for expansion projects, making the CNEE more dependent on the central government and changes in the policy toward subsidies for low income customers.

Environmental and Land Use Regulations

Overview.   We have ownership interests in generation and distribution assets in the U.S. and many other countries and we are thereforeThe Company is subject to various international, national, federal, state and local environmental and land use laws and regulations. These laws and regulations primarily relate to discharges into the air and air quality, discharge of effluents into water and the use of water, waste disposal, remediation, noise pollution, contamination at current or former facilities or waste disposal sites, wetlands preservation and endangered species. Each of the countries in which we dothe Company does business also has laws and regulations governing operation of power generation and distribution assets, including laws relating to the siting, construction, permitting, ownership, operation, modification, repair and decommissioning of, and power sales from, such assets. In addition, to such laws and regulations, international projects funded by the World Bank are subject to World Bank environmental standards, which tend to be more stringent than local country standards. AES often has used advanced environmental technologies (such as CFBcirculating fluidized bed (“CFB”)) coal technologies or advanced gas turbines) in order to minimize environmental impacts.

Environmental laws and regulations affecting power generation and distribution are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent over time. We haveThe Company has incurred and will continue to incur capital costs and other expenditures in order to comply with environmental laws and regulations, in particular, with respect to the laws and regulations described below.regulations. See Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Capital Resources and Liquidity for more detail. If environmental and land usethese regulations change, in the future, weCompany may be required to make significant capital or other expenditures.expenditures to comply. There can be no assurance that wethe Company would be able to recover from our customers some or allthese compliance costs to comply with such environmental or land use regulations or that our business, financial conditions or results of operations would not be materially and adversely affected.

Various licenses, permits and approvals are required for our operations. Failure to comply with permits or approvals, or with environmental laws, can result in fines, penalties or interruptions to our operations. While we havethe Company has at times been out of compliance with environmental laws and regulations, past non-compliance has not resulted in the revocation of material permits or licenses and has not had a material impact on our operations or results.results and we have expeditiously corrected the non-compliance as required.

Air Emissions.The U.S. Clean Air Act and various state laws and regulations regulate emissions of major air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and particulate matter (“PM”) in the U.S.. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) rulemaking requiring adjustments to state implementation plans relating to NOx emissions (the “NOx SIP Call”) resulted in operators ofrequired coal-fired electric generating facilities in 21 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to either (i) reducingreduce their NOx emissions to levels allocatedequal to allowances under the plan or (ii) purchasingpurchase NOx emissions allowances from other operators in order to meet allocatedactual emissions levels by May 31, 2004. We are in the process or have completed installing selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) and other NOx control technologies at three facilitiescoal-fired units of our subsidiary, Indianapolis Power and Light (“IPL”) in response to NOx SIP Call implementation and other proposed air emissions regulations that are discussed in more detail below.


In March 2005, the EPA finalized two rules that will affect many of our U.S. coal-fired power generating plants. The first rule, named the “Clean Air Interstate Rule” (“CAIR”), was promulgated on March 10, 2005 and requires significant reductions ofadditional allowance surrender for SO2and NOx emissions from existing power plants located in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. The required emission reductionsCAIR will be implemented in two phases with thephases. The first phase beginningwill begin in 2009 and 2010 for NOx and SO2, respectively, and arespectively. A second phase with additional reductions inallowance surrender obligations for both air pollutantpollutants emissions beginningbegins in 2015. The second rule, called the “CleanClean Air Mercury Rule (“CAMR”), was issuedpromulgated on March 15, 2005 and requires reductions of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in two phases. The first phase will begin in 2010 and will require nationwide reduction of coal-fired power plant mercury emissions from 48 to 38 tons per year. The second phase will begin in 2018 and will require nationwide reduction of mercury emissions from these sources from 38 tons per year to 15 tons per year. The Clean Air Mercury RuleCAMR also establishes stringent mercury emission performance standards for new coal-fired power plants. The EPA has granted reconsideration on certain aspects of this rule.

To implement the required emission reductions for these two new rules, the states will establish emission allowance-based NOx,“cap-and-trade” programs.

Both the CAIR and CAMR have been challenged in federal court. No decisions have been rendered on the challenges. Also, a number of the states have indicated that they intend to impose more stringent emission limitations on power plants within their states rather than promulgate rules consistent with the CAIR and CAMR cap-and-trade programs. In response to CAIR, CAMR and potentially more stringent U.S. state initiatives on SO2and mercury emission “cap-and-trade” programs. NOx emissions, AES completed a multi-pollutant control project at its Greenidge power plant in New York state and initiated construction of a similar project at its Westover power plant in New York state. In addition, a flue gas desulfurization scrubber upgrade project was completed at the IPL Petersburg power plant, and construction of an SCR system was initiated at our Deepwater petroleum coke-fired power plant near Houston, Texas.

While the exact impact and cost of these two new rules cannot be established until the states complete the process of assigning emission allowances to our affected facilities, there can be no assurance that ourthe Company’s business, financial conditions or results of operations would not be materially and adversely affected by these new rules.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) recently promulgated regulations requiring electric generators to reduce SO2emissions by 50% below current U.S. Clean Air Act standards. The  SO2 regulations began to be phased in beginning on January 1, 2005 with implementation to be completed by January 1, 2008. These regulations also establish stringent NOx reduction requirements year-round, rather than just during the summertime ozone season. As a result, in order to operate ourthe Company’s four electric generation facilities located in New York, installation of pollution control technology will likely be required.

In July 1999, the EPA published the “Regional Haze Rule” to reduce haze and protect visibility in designated federal areas. On June 15, 2005, EPA proposed amendments to the Regional Haze Rule that, among other things, set guidelines for determining when to require the installation of “best available retrofit technology” (“BART”) at older plants. The proposed amendment to the Regional Haze Rule would require states to consider the visibility impacts of the haze produced by an individual facility, amongin addition to other factors, when determining whether that facility must install potentially costly emissions controls. States are required to submit to the EPA their regional haze state implementation plans by December 2007. States that adopt the CAIR cap and trade program for SO2and NOx are allowed to apply CAIR controls as a substitute for controls required under BART. On June 20, 2005, EPA proposed a rule for an emission trading program under the regional haze program.BART controls.

Currently in the United States there are no federal mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction programs including(including carbon dioxide (“CO2”),) affecting ourthe Company’s electricity power generation facilities. The U.S. Congress has debated a number of proposed greenhouse gas legislative initiatives, but to date there have been no new federal laws in this area. Also, individualNine states and groupshave entered into a memorandum of


understanding under which the states are also examining possible greenhouse gas emissionwould coordinate to establish rules that require the reduction programs including the State of California and a group of seven northeastern states under anin CO2 emissions from power plant operations with those states. This initiative is called the Regional Greenhouse Gas initiativeInitiative (“RGGI”). Although final legislation or regulations implementingOn August 15, 2006, seven northeastern U.S. states issued a finalized model rule to implement RGGI. When it goes into effect, the RGGI initiative will impose a cap on baseline CO2 emissions during the 2009 through 2014 period, and mandate a ten percent reduction in CO2 emissions during the 2015 to 2019 period. On September 27, 2006, the Governor of California signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also called Assembly Bill 32 (A.B. 32) A.B. 32 directs the California Air Resources Board to promulgate regulations that will reduce CO2 and RGGIother greenhouse gas emission reduction programs hasemissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Although specific implementation measures for RGGI and A.B. 32 have yet to be enacted,finalized, these greenhouse gas-related initiatives may potentially affect AES electric power generation facilities in California, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. At present, wethe Company cannot predict whether compliance with potential future U.S. national, regional and state greenhouse gas emission reduction programs will have a material impact on our operations or results.


In Europe we are,the Company is, and will continue to be, required to reduce air emissions from our facilities to comply with applicable European Community (“EC”) Directives, including Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (the “LCPD”), which sets emission limit values for NOx,  SO2, and particulate matter for large-scale industrial combustion plants for all member states. Until June 2004, existing coal plants could “opt-in” or “opt-out” of the LCPD emissions standards. Those plants that opted out will be required to cease all operations by 2015 and may not operate for more than 20,000 hours after 2008. Those that opt-in, like ourthe Company’s AES Kilroot facility in the United Kingdom, must invest in abatement technology to achieve specific SO2reductions. Generally, AES’s other coal plants in Europe have opted-in but will not require any additional abatement technology to comply with the LCPD.

In July 2003, the EC “Directive 2003/87/EC on Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading” was created, which requires member states to limit emissions of CO2from large industrial sources within their countries. To do so, member states will beare required to implement EC approved national allocation plans (“NAPs”). Under the NAPs, member states will beare responsible for allocating limited CO2allowances within their borders. Directive 2003/87/EC does not dictate how these allocations are to be made, and NAPs that have been submitted thus far have varied their allocation methodologies. For these and other reasons, there remain significant uncertainties regarding the application of the European Union Emissions Trading System which commenced operation in January 2005. Based on ourits current analyses, we expectthe Company expects that certain AES businesses will be under-allocated and others will be over-allocated. At present,Although:  i) we have a limited number of operating facilities that fall under EU ETS control, ii) a couple of these have very low baseline emissions because they are either biomass only or co-fire biomass, and iii) the risk and benefit at others are not the responsibility of AES as they are subject to change of law provisions that transfer responsibility for environmental compliance with these regulations to our offtakers, the fact remains that the Company cannot predict whether compliance with the respective NAPs will have a material impact on our operations or results.

On February 16, 2005, the “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” (the “Kyoto Protocol”) became effective. The Kyoto Protocol requires countries that have ratified it to substantially reduce their greenhouse gas emissions including CO2. AES presently has generation operations in sixfive countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Over the course of the next several years, as decisions surrounding implementation of the Kyoto Protocol become more detailed, wethe Company will have a better understanding of the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on itself. In the Company.interim we announced on September 21, 2006, that we will produce 10 million tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas offsets by 2012 in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America by developing and operating projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. At present wethe Company cannot predict whether compliance with the Kyoto Protocol will have a material impact on ourits operations or results.

48




Water Discharges.   OurThe Company’s facilities are subject to a variety of rules governing water discharges. In particular we arethe Company is evaluating the impact of the U.S. Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rule regarding existing power plant cooling water intake.intake structures issued by the U.S. EPA in 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 41579, July 9, 2004). The rule as currently issued will affect 12 U.S. AES power plants, the rule’s requirements will be implemented via each plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) water quality permit renewal process, and these permits are usually processed by state water quality agencies. To protect fish and other aquatic organisms, the 2004 rule requires existing steam electric generating facilities to utilize the best technology available for cooling water intake structures. We believe that many of our facilities will be affected by this rule. To comply weit must first prepare a Comprehensive Demonstration Study to assess each facility’s effect on the local aquatic environment. BecauseSince each facility’s design, location, existing control equipment and results of impact assessments must be taken into consideration, costs will likely vary. The timing of capital expenditures to achieve compliance with this rule will vary from site to site and may begin as early as 2008 for some of our U.S. plants. However, as a result of a recent United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision (Docket Nos. 04-6692 to 04-6699) remanding major parts of the 2004 rule back to U.S. EPA, we expect further delays in implementing the rule at many of our affected facilities. At present, however, wethe Company cannot predict whether compliance with the 316(b) rule will have a material impact on our operations or results.

Waste Management.   In the course of operations, ourthe Company’s facilities generate solid and liquid waste materials requiring eventual disposal. With the exception of coal combustion products (“CCP”), ourits wastes are not usually physically disposed of on our property, but are shipped off site for final disposal, treatment or recycling. CCP, which consists of bottom ash, fly ash and air pollution control wastes, is disposed of at some of our coal-fired power generation plant sites using engineered, permitted landfills. Waste materials generated at our electric power and distribution facilities include CCP, oil, scrap metal, rubbish, small quantities of industrial hazardous wastes such as spent solvents, tree and land clearing wastes and polychlorinated biphenyl (“PCB”) contaminated liquids and solids. We endeavorThe Company endeavors to ensure that all ourits solid and liquid wastes are disposed of in accordance with applicable national, regional, state and local regulations.

40




ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS         RISK FACTORS

Investing in our company involves a high degree risk. You should consider carefully consider the following risks, described below before deciding to investalong with the other information contained in or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K. Additional risks and uncertainties also may adversely affect our Company.business and operations including those discussed in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If any of the following events actually occur, our business and financial results could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Associated with our Disclosure Controls and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The Company’sOur disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting were determined not to be effective as of December 31, 2006, December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, due toas evidenced by the material weaknesses that existed in our internal control over financial reporting.controls. Our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting may not be effective in future periods, as a result of existing or newly identified material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.controls.

As required by the federal securities laws, ourOur management periodically performs an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures and conducts an assessment of our internal control over financial reporting. “Disclosure controls and procedures” are controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files with the SEC under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the chief executive officer and chief financial officer to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures. “Internal control over financial reporting” is the process designed by a company’s senior management 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.

In performing the assessment at the end of 2005 and 2004, our management identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting.reporting at the end of 2006, 2005 and 2004. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, that adversely affects a company'scompany’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report external financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is a more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. For a discussion of the material weaknesses identified by our management, see Item 9A of this 2005 annual report on Form 10-K.

Due to these material weaknesses, ourOur management concluded that as of December 31, 2006, December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, our Companywe did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective. not effective to provide reasonable assurance that financial information we are required to disclose in our reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


was recorded, processed, summarized and reported accurately. For a discussion of the material weaknesses reported by AES’s management as of December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 see Item 9A of this 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

During ourthe remediation efforts to correct the material weakness that was identified at the end of 2004, errors were discovered in our financial statements which resulted from such material weakness, as well as errors resulting from newly identified material weaknesses. These errors required us to restate our financial statements that were previously filed in our annual reportAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005. During the 2005 year-end closing process and the first quarter of 2006, additional errors were identified relating to the existing material weakness and newly identified material weaknesses that required us to restate prior period financial statements on January 19, 2006 and April 4, 2006. In addition, during the 2006 year-end closing process further errors were identified relating to existing material weaknesses as well as related to newly identified material weaknesses that required us to restate our previously filed 10-K’s and 10-Q’s for a fourth time. To address thethese material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, each time we prepared our annual and quarterly reports we performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures in order to prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. These additional procedures wereare costly, time consuming and requiredrequire us to dedicate a significant amount of our resources, including the time and attention of our senior management, toward the correction of these problems. Performing these

Although we reported remediation of certain material weaknesses as of December 31, 2006 and continue to execute plans to remediate the remaining material weaknesses in 2007, there can be no assurance as to when the remediation plans will be fully implemented, nor can there be any assurance that additional procedures and the need to restate our financial statements also caused us to delay the filing of our quarterly reports for the second and third quarters of 2005 until January 2006, which was well beyond the deadline prescribed by the SEC’s rules to file such reports. In addition, during the 2005 year-end closing process, additional errors werematerial weaknesses will not be identified that required us to restate our 2004 and 2003 financial results. These corrections are included in the 2005 annual report on Form 10-K. The delays in filing our 2004 Form 10-K/A, and restated quarterly reports, as well as the additional errors identified during the year-end closing process caused the 2005 annual report on Form 10-Kfuture. Due to be filed after the SEC deadline for the 2005 annual report on Form 10-K, as well.

As a result of not timely filing the quarterly and annual reports with the SEC, we lost our eligibility to offer and sell our securities pursuant to our shelf registration statement on Form S-3 which could impair


our ability to access the capital markets in a timely manner. In addition, the restatements and the delay in the filing of our quarterly and annual reports could have other adverse effects on our business, including, but not limited to:

·       civil litigation or an investigation by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could require us to incur significant legal expenses and other costs or to pay damages, fines or other penalties,

·       covenant defaults, and potentially events of default, under our senior secured credit facilities and the indentures governing our outstanding debt securities, resulting from our failure to timely file our financial statements,

·       negative publicity, or

·       the loss or impairment of investor confidence in our Company.

Because of our decentralized structure and the manyour disparate accounting systems, of varying quality and sophistication at our various businesses throughout the world, there is still extensivewe have additional work remaining to remedy theremediate our material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting. We have developed a remediation plan and have begun implementing this plan, but we expect that this work will extend throughout 2006 and possibly beyond. We cannot assure you as to when the remediation plan will be fully implemented, nor can we assure that additional material weaknesses will not be identified by our management or the auditors in the future. Until our remediation efforts are completed, we will continue to be at an increased risk that our financial statements could contain errors that will be undetected, and we will continue to incur thesignificant expense and management burdens associated with the additional procedures required to prepare our consolidated financial statements. There will also continue to be an increased risk that we will be unable to timely file future periodic reports with the SEC, that a related default under our senior secured credit facilities and indentures could occur and that our financial statements could contain errors that will be undetected.

Management, including our CEO and CFO, does not expect that our internal controls will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of controls is subject to risks that those internal controls may become inadequate in future periods because of changes in business conditions, changes in accounting practice or policy, or that the degree of compliance with the revised policies or procedures deteriorates.In addition, the effect of new, or changes in, accounting policies and practices and the application of such policies and practices could adversely affect our business.

Our high levelidentification of indebtedness,material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting caused us to miss deadlines for certain SEC filings and if further filing delays occur, they could result in negative attention and/or legal consequences for the Company.

Our identification of the material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting caused us to delay the filing of certain quarterly and annual reports with the SEC to dates that went beyond the deadline prescribed by the SEC’s rules to file such reports.

We did not timely file with the SEC our quarterly and annual reports for the year ended December 31, 2005; our annual report for the year ended December 31, 2006; and our quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2007. Under SEC rules, failure to timely file these reports prohibits us from offering and selling our securities pursuant to our shelf registration statement on Form S-3, which has impaired and will continue to impair our ability to access the capital markets through the public sale of


registered securities in a timely manner. We will regain our S-3 eligibility on June 1, 2008 if we timely file all required reports until that date.

The failure to file our 2005 and 2006 annual reports with the SEC in a timely fashion also resulted in covenant defaults under our Senior Secured Credit Facility and the security provided for this indebtedness,indenture governing certain of our outstanding debt securities. Such defaults required us to obtain a waiver from the lender under the Senior Secured Credit Facility, while the default under the indentures was cured upon the filing of the reports within the permitted grace period.

Until our remediation efforts are completed, there will continue to be an increased risk that we will be unable to timely file future periodic reports with the SEC and that a related default under our senior secured credit facilities and indentures could occur. In addition, the material weaknesses in internal control, the restatements, and the delay in the filing of our quarterly reports and any similar problems in the future could have other adverse effects on our business, including, but not limited to:

·       impairing our ability to access the capital markets, including, but not limited to the inability to offer and sell securities pursuant to a shelf registration statement on Form S-3;

·       litigation or an expansion of the SEC’s informal inquiry into our restatements or the commencement of formal proceedings by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could require us to incur significant legal expenses and other costs or to pay damages, fines or other penalties;

·       additional covenant defaults, and potential events of default, under our senior secured credit facilities and the indentures governing our outstanding debt securities, resulting from our failure to timely file our financial statements;

·       negative publicity;

·       ratings downgrades; or

·       the loss or impairment of investor confidence in the Company.

Risks Related to our High Level of Indebtedness

We have a significant amount of debt, a large percentage of which is secured, which could adversely affect our business and ourthe ability to fulfill our obligations.

AtAs of December 31, 2005,2006, we had approximately $17.7$16.3 billion of outstanding indebtedness on a consolidated basis, of which approximately $4.9 billion was recourse debt of The AES Corporation and approximately $12.8 billion was non-recourse debt. basis. All outstanding borrowings under ourThe AES Corporation’s Senior Secured Credit Facility, our Second Priority Senior Secured Notes and certain other indebtedness are secured by certain of our assets, including the pledge of capital stock of many of our directly heldThe AES Corporation’s directly-held subsidiaries. Most of the debt of ourThe AES Corporation’s subsidiaries is pledgedsecured by substantially all of the assets of those subsidiaries. Since we have such a high level of debt, a substantial portion of cash flow from operations must be used to make payment on this debt. Furthermore, since a significant percentage of our assets are used to secure this debt, this reduces the amount of collateral that is available for future secured debt or credit support and reduces our flexibility in dealing with these secured assets. This high level of indebtedness and related security could have other important consequences to us and our investors, because it could:including:

·       makemaking it more difficult for us to satisfy our debt service and other obligations,obligations;

·       increasing the likelihood of a downgrade of our debt, which can cause future debt payments to increase and consume an even greater portion of cash flow;

·       increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions,conditions;


·       require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to make payments on our indebtedness, thereby       reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund other corporate purposes and grow our business,business;

·       limitlimiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry,industry;


·       placeplacing us at a competitive disadvantage to our competitors that are not as highly leveraged,leveraged; and

·       limit,limiting, along with the financial and other restrictive covenants in our and our subsidiaries’relating to such indebtedness, among other things, our ability to borrow additional funds as needed or take advantage of business opportunities as they arise.arise, pay cash dividends or repurchase common stock.

The agreements governing our indebtedness, andincluding the indebtedness of our subsidiaries, limit but do not prohibit us or our subsidiaries from incurringthe incurrence of additional indebtedness. To the extent we become more leveraged, the risks described above would increase. Further, our actual cash requirements in the future may be greater than expected. Accordingly, our cash flow from operations may not be sufficient to repay at maturity all of the outstanding debt as it becomes due and, in that event, we may not be able to borrow money, sell assets or otherwise raise funds on acceptable terms or at all to refinance our debt as it becomes due.

We have significant cash requirementsThe AES Corporation is a holding company and limited sourcesits ability to make payments on its outstanding indebtedness, including its public debt securities, is dependent upon the receipt of liquidity.funds from its subsidiaries by way of dividends, fees, interest, loans or otherwise.

The AES Corporation which refers tois a holding company with no material assets, other than the AES parent company, requires cash primarily to fund:

·       principal repaymentsstock of debt,

·       interest and preferred dividends,

·       acquisitions,

·       construction and other project commitments,

·       other equity commitments,

·       taxes, and

·       parent company overhead and development costs.

its subsidiaries. All of The AES Corporation’s principal sourcesrevenue is generated through its subsidiaries. Accordingly, almost all of liquidity are:

·       dividends and distributions fromThe AES Corporation’s cash flow is generated by the operating activities of its subsidiaries,

·       proceeds from debt and equity financings at the parent company level, and

·       proceeds from asset sales.

For a more detailed discussion of our cash requirements and sources of liquidity, please see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Capital Resources and Liquidity” in this 2005 annual report on Form 10-K.

While we believe that these sources will be adequate to meet our obligations at the parent company level for the foreseeable future, this belief is based on a number of material assumptions, including, without limitation, assumptions about oursubsidiaries. Therefore, The AES Corporation’s ability to access the capital or commercial lending markets, the operatingmake payments on its indebtedness and financial performance of our subsidiaries, exchange rates andto fund its other obligations is dependent not only on the ability of its subsidiaries to pay dividends.generate cash, but also on the ability of the subsidiaries to distribute cash to it in the form of dividends, fees, interest, loans or otherwise.

However, our subsidiaries face various restrictions in their ability to distribute cash to The AES Corporation. Most of the subsidiaries are obligated, pursuant to loan agreements, indentures or project financing arrangements, to satisfy certain restricted payment covenants or other conditions before they may make distributions to The AES Corporation. In addition, the payment of dividends or the making of loans, advances or other payments to The AES Corporation may be subject to legal or regulatory restrictions. Business performance and local accounting and tax rules may limit the amount of retained earnings, which is in many cases the basis of dividend payments. Subsidiaries in foreign countries may also be prevented from distributing funds to The AES Corporation as a result of restrictions imposed by the foreign government on repatriating funds or converting currencies. Any numberright The AES Corporation has to receive any assets of assumptions could proveany of its subsidiaries upon any liquidation, dissolution, winding up, receivership, reorganization, assignment for the benefit of creditors, marshaling of assets and liabilities or any bankruptcy, insolvency or similar proceedings (and the consequent right of the holders of The AES Corporation’s indebtedness to be incorrect and therefore we cannot assure you that these sourcesparticipate in the distribution of, or to realize proceeds from, those assets) will be effectively subordinated to the claims of any such subsidiary’s creditors (including trade creditors and holders of debt issued by such subsidiary).

The AES Corporation’s subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and, unless they have expressly guaranteed any of The AES Corporation’s indebtedness, have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any amounts due pursuant to such debt or to make any funds available when neededtherefore, whether by dividends, fees, loans or that our actual cash requirements will not be greater than expected. In addition, our cash flow may not be sufficientother payments. While some of The AES Corporation’s subsidiaries guarantee its indebtedness under its Senior Secured Credit Facility and certain other indebtedness, none of its subsidiaries guarantee, or are otherwise obligated with respect to, repay at maturity all of the principalits outstanding under our senior secured credit facilities and ourpublic debt securities and we may have to refinance such obligations. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in obtaining such refinancings.securities.


ExistingEven though The AES Corporation is a holding company, existing and potential future defaults by project subsidiaries or affiliates could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.The AES Corporation.

We attempt to finance our domestic and foreign projects primarily under loan agreements and related documents which, except as noted below, require the loans to be repaid solely from the project’s revenues and provide that the repayment of the loans (and interest thereon) is secured solely by the capital stock,


physical assets, contracts and cash flow of that project subsidiary or affiliate. This type of financing is usually referred to as non-recourse debt or “project financing.” In some project financings, The AES Corporation has explicitly agreed to undertake certain limited obligations and contingent liabilities, most of which by their terms will only be effective or will be terminated upon the occurrence of future events. These obligations and liabilities take the form of guarantees, indemnities, letter of credit reimbursement agreements and agreements to pay, in certain circumstances, the project lenders or other parties. To the extent

As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately $16.3 billion of outstanding indebtedness on a consolidated basis, of which approximately $4.8 billion was recourse debt of The AES Corporation becomes liable under such guarantees and other arrangements, distributions received by The AES Corporation from other projects are subject to the possibility of being utilized by The AES Corporation to satisfy these obligations.

Atapproximately $11.5 billion was non-recourse debt. In addition, at December 31, 2005, we had approximately $4.9 billon of recourse debt and approximately $12.8 billion of non-recourse debt outstanding. At December 31, 2005,2006, The AES Corporation had provided outstandingprovided:

·       financial and performance related guarantees or other credit support commitments to or for the benefit of its subsidiaries, which were limited by the terms of the agreements, to an aggregate of approximately $507$533 million; and

·       $461 million (excluding those collateralized by letter-of-credit obligations discussed below). in letters of credit outstanding and $1 million in surety bonds outstanding, which operate to guarantee performance relating to certain project construction and development activities and subsidiary operations.

The AES Corporation is also is obligated under other commitments, which are limited to amounts, or percentages of amounts, received by The AES Corporation as distributions from its project subsidiaries. In addition, The AES Corporation has commitments to fund its equity in projects currently under development or in construction. At December 31, 2005, The AES Corporation also had $294 million in letters of credit outstanding and $1 million in surety bonds outstanding, which operate to guarantee performance relating to certain project development activities and subsidiary operations.

Some of our subsidiaries are currently in default with respect to all or a portion of their outstanding indebtedness. The total debt classified as current in our consolidated balance sheets related to such defaults was $138$245 million at December 31, 2005.

2006. While the lenders under our non-recourse project financings generally do not have direct recourse to The AES Corporation (other than to the extent of any credit support given by The AES Corporation), defaults thereunder can still have important consequences for The AES Corporation’s results of operations and liquidity,Corporation, including, without limitation:

·       reducing The AES Corporation’s receipt of subsidiary dividends, fees, interest, loan and other sources of cash flows since the project subsidiary will typically be prohibited from distributing cash to The AES Corporation during the pendancy of any default,default;

·       triggering The AES Corporation’s obligation to make payments under any financial guarantee, letter of credit or other credit support which The AES Corporation has provided to or on behalf of such subsidiary,subsidiary;

·       causing The AES Corporation to record a loss in the event the lender forecloses on the assets, orassets;

·       triggering defaults in The AES Corporation’s outstanding debt and trust preferred instruments. For example, The AES Corporation’s senior secured credit facilitiesSenior Secured Credit Facility and outstanding senior notes and junior subordinated notes include events of default for certain bankruptcy related events involving material subsidiaries. In addition, The AES Corporation’s senior secured credit facilities includeSenior Secured Credit Facility includes certain events of default relating to accelerations of outstanding debt of material subsidiaries.subsidiaries; or

·       the loss or impairment of investor confidence in the Company.

None of the projects that are currently in default are owned by subsidiaries that meet the applicable definition of materiality in The AES Corporation’s senior secured credit facilitiesSenior Secured Credit Facility in order for such defaults to trigger an event of default or permit an acceleration under such indebtedness. However, as a result of


future write down of assets, dispositions and other matters that affect our financial position and results of operations, it is possible that one or more of these subsidiaries could fall within the definition of a “material subsidiary” and thereby upon an acceleration of such subsidiary’s debt, trigger an event of


default and possible acceleration of the indebtedness under The AES Corporation’s senior secured credit facilities.Senior Secured Credit Facility.

Risks Associated with our Ability to Raise Needed Capital

The AES Corporation has significant cash requirements and limited sources of liquidity.

The AES Corporation requires cash primarily to fund:

·       principal repayments of debt;

·       interest and preferred dividends;

·       acquisitions;

·       construction and other project commitments;

·       other equity commitments, including business development investments;

·       taxes; and

·       parent company overhead costs.

The AES Corporation’s principal sources of liquidity are:

·       dividends and other distributions from its subsidiaries;

·       proceeds from debt and equity financings at the parent company level; and

·       proceeds from asset sales.

For a more detailed discussion of The AES Corporation’s cash requirements and sources of liquidity, please see “Item 7.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Capital Resources and Liquidity” in this 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

While we believe that these sources will be adequate to meet our obligations at the parent company level for the foreseeable future, this belief is based on a number of material assumptions, including, without limitation, assumptions about our ability to access the capital or commercial lending markets, the operating and financial performance of our subsidiaries, exchange rates and the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends. Any number of assumptions could prove to be incorrect and therefore there can be no assurance that these sources will be available when needed or that our actual cash requirements will not be greater than expected. In addition, our cash flow may not be sufficient to repay at maturity all of the principal outstanding under our Senior Secured Credit Facility and our debt securities and may have to refinance such obligations. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining such refinancing and any of these events could have a material effect on us.

Our competitive supplyability to grow our business could be materially adversely affected if we were unable to raise capital on favorable terms.

Our ability to arrange for financing on either a recourse or non-recourse basis and Latin American operations representthe costs of such capital are dependent on numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:

·       general economic and capital market conditions;

·       the availability of bank credit;

·       investor confidence;

·       the financial condition, performance and prospects of The AES Corporation in general and/or that of any subsidiary requiring the financing; and

·       changes in tax and securities laws which are conducive to raising capital.


Should future access to capital not be available, we may have to sell assets or decide not to build new plants or acquire existing facilities, either of which would affect our future growth.

A downgrade in the credit ratings of The AES Corporation or its subsidiaries could adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets which could increase our interest costs or adversely affect our liquidity and cash flow.

From time to time, we rely on access to capital markets as a substantial portionsource of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. If any of the credit ratings of The AES Corporation or its subsidiaries were to be downgraded, our ability to raise capital on favorable terms could be impaired and our borrowing costs would increase.

Furthermore, depending on The AES Corporation’s credit ratings and the trading prices of its equity and debt securities, counter parties may no longer be as willing to accept general unsecured commitments by The AES Corporation to provide credit support. Accordingly, with respect to both new and existing commitments, The AES Corporation may be required to provide some other form of assurance, such as a letter of credit, to backstop or replace any credit support by The AES Corporation. There can be no assurance that such counter parties will accept such guarantees in the future. In addition, to the extent The AES Corporation is required and able to provide letters of credit or other collateral to such counterparties; it will limit the amount of credit available to The AES Corporation to meet its other liquidity needs.

We may not be able to raise sufficient capital to fund “greenfield” projects in certain less developed economies which could change or in some cases adversely affect our growth strategy.

Part of our assetsstrategy is to grow our business by developing Generation and Utility businesses in less developed economies where the return on our investment may be greater than projects in more developed economies. Commercial lending institutions sometimes refuse to provide non-recourse project financing in certain less developed economies, and in these situations we have causedsought and are expected towill continue to cause significant volatilityseek direct or indirect (through credit support or guarantees) project financing from a limited number of multilateral or bilateral international financial institutions or agencies. As a precondition to making such project financing available, the lending institutions may also require governmental guarantees of certain project and sovereign related risks. There can be no assurance, however, that project financing from the international financial agencies or that governmental guarantees will be available when needed, and if they are not, we may have to abandon the project or invest more of our own funds which may not be in line with our investment objectives and would leave less funds for other projects.

External Risks Associated with Revenue and Earnings Volatility

Our financial position and results of operations and cash flows.may fluctuate significantly due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates experienced at our foreign operations.

The competitive supply segmentOur exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations results primarily from the translation exposure associated with the preparation of our businessconsolidated financial statements, as well as from transaction exposure associated with transactions in currencies other than an entity’s functional currency. While our consolidated financial statements are reported in U.S. dollars, the financial statements of many of our subsidiaries outside the United States are prepared using the local currency as the functional currency and translated into U.S. dollars by applying appropriate exchange rates. As a result, fluctuations in the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar relative to the local currencies where our Latin American operations each experience volatility in revenues and earnings and has had and is expected to continue tosubsidiaries outside the United States report could cause significant volatilityfluctuations in our results. In addition, while our expenses with respect to foreign operations are generally denominated in the same currency as corresponding sales, we have transaction exposure to the extent receipts and expenditures are not offsetting in the subsidiary’s functional currency. We also experience foreign transaction exposure to the extent monetary assets and liabilities, including debt, are in a different currency than the subsidiary’s functional currency. Moreover, the costs of doing business abroad may increase as a result of adverse exchange rate fluctuations. Our


financial position and results of operations have been significantly affected by fluctuations in the value of a number of currencies, primarily the Brazilian real, Venezuelan bolivar and Argentine peso. As our Brazilian and Argentine businesses primarily identify their local currency as its functional currency, devaluation of these currencies has resulted in deferred translation losses (foreign currency translation adjustments recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss) based on positive net asset positions. Devaluation has also resulted in foreign currency transaction losses primarily associated with U.S. dollar debt at these businesses. As our Venezuelan business identifies the U.S. dollar as its functional currency, no deferred translation gains or losses are recognized. However, devaluation of the Venezuelan bolivar has resulted in foreign currency transaction gains associated with U.S. dollar at this subsidiary. In addition, because it is difficult to estimate the overall impact of foreign exchange fluctuations related to translation exposure on our results of operations, we do not separately quantify the impact on earnings.

Our businesses may incur substantial costs and cash flows.liabilities and be exposed to price volatility as a result of risks associated with the wholesale electricity markets, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial performance.

Some of our Generation businesses sell electricity in the wholesale spot markets in cases where they operate wholly or partially without long-term power sales agreements. Our Utility businesses and, to the extent they require additional capacity, our Generation business, also buys electricity in the wholesale spot markets. As a result, we are exposed to the risks of rising and falling prices in those markets. The competitiveopen market wholesale prices for electricity are very volatile and often reflect the fluctuating cost of coal, natural gas, or oil. Consequently, any changes in the supply segment’s volatility has resultedand cost of coal, natural gas, and oil may impact the open market wholesale price of electricity.

Volatility in market prices for fuel and electricity may result from volatileamong other things:

·       plant availability;

·       competition;

·       demand for energy commodities;

·       electricity prices, which are influenced by peak demand requirements, weather conditions, competition, market regulation,usage;

·       seasonality;

·       interest rate and foreign exchange rate fluctuations, electricityfluctuation;

·       availability and price of emission credits;

·       input prices;

·       weather;

·       illiquid markets;

·       transmission or transportation constraints or inefficiencies;

·       availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources;

·       available supplies of natural gas, crude oil and refined products, and coal;

·       generating unit performance;

·       natural disasters, terrorism, wars, embargoes and other catastrophic events;

·       energy, market and environmental emission constraints,regulation, legislation and policies;

·       geopolitical concerns affecting global supply of oil and natural gas; and

·       general economic conditions in areas where we operate which impact energy consumption.

56




In addition, our business depends upon transmission facilities owned and operated by others. If transmission is disrupted or capacity is inadequate or unavailable, our ability to sell and deliver power may be limited. Several of our Alternative Energy initiatives may, if we are successful in developing them further, operate without long-term sales or fuel supply agreements, and, as a result, may experience significant volatility in their results of operations.

We may not be adequately hedged against our exposure to changes in commodity prices.

We routinely enter into contracts to hedge a portion of our purchase and sale commitments for electricity, fuel requirements and other commodities to lower our financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations. As part of this strategy, we routinely utilize fixed-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the availabilityover-the-counter markets or on exchanges. However, we may not cover the entire exposure of our assets or positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time. Furthermore, the risk management procedures we have in place may not always be followed or may not work as planned. In particular, if prices of emission credits and fuelcommodities significantly deviate from historical prices as well as plant availability and other relevant factors. Our Latin American operations have experienced significantor if the price volatility because of regulatory and economic difficulties, political instability and currency devaluations being experienced in manyor distribution of these countries.changes deviates from historical norms, our risk management system may not protect us from significant losses. As a result fluctuating commodity prices may negatively impact our financial results to the extent we have unhedged or inadequately hedged positions. In addition, certain types of economic hedging activities may not qualify for hedge accounting under GAAP, resulting in increased volatility in our net income.

Certain of our businesses are sensitive to variations in weather.

The energy business is affected by variations in general weather conditions and unusually severe weather. Our businesses forecast electric sales on the basis of normal weather, which represents a long-term historical average. While we also consider possible variations in normal weather patterns and potential impacts on our facilities and our businesses, there can be no assurance that such planning can prevent these impacts, which can adversely affect our business. Generally, demand for electricity peaks in winter and summer. Typically, when winters are warmer than expected and summers are cooler than expected, demand for energy is lower, resulting in less electric consumption than forecasted. Significant variations from normal weather where our businesses are located could have a material impact on our results of operations.

Risks Associated with our Operations

We do a significant amount of our business outside the United States which presents significant risks.

During 2005,2006, approximately 79% of our revenue was generated outside the United States and a significant portion of our international operations is conducted in developing countries. Part of our growth strategy is to expand our business in developing countries because the growth rates and the opportunity to implement operating improvements and achieve higher operating margins may be greater than those typically achievable in more developed countries. International operations, particularly the operation, financing and development of projects in developing countries, entail significant risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation:

·       economic, social and political instability in any particular country or region,region;

·       adverse changes in currency exchange rates,rates;

·       government restrictions on converting currencies or repatriating funds,funds;

·       unexpected changes in foreign laws and regulations or in trade, monetary or fiscal policies,policies;

·       high inflation and monetary fluctuations,fluctuations;


·       restrictions on imports of coal, oil, gas or other raw materials required by our generation businesses to operate,operate;

·       threatened or consummated expropriation or nationalization of our assets by foreign governments,governments;

·       difficulties in hiring, training and retaining qualified personnel, particularly finance and accounting personnel with U.S. GAAP expertise,expertise;

·       unwillingness of governments, government agencies or similar organizations to honor their contracts,contracts;

·       inability to obtain access to fair and equitable political, regulatory, administrative and legal systems,systems;

·       adverse changes in government tax policy;

·       difficulties in enforcing our contractual rights or enforcing judgments or obtaining a just result in local jurisdictions,jurisdictions; and

·       potentially adverse tax consequences of operating in multiple jurisdictions.


Any of these factors, by itself or in combination with others, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. For example, we recently sold our stake in EDC to PDVSA, a state owned company in Venezuela after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to expropriate the electricity business in Venezuela. We expect to recognize an impairment charge of approximately $600 to $650 million. In addition, our Latin American operations experience volatility in revenues and earnings which have caused and are expected to cause significant volatility in our results of operations and cash flows. The volatility is caused by regulatory and economic difficulties, political instability and currency devaluations being experienced in many of these countries. This volatility reduces the predictability and enhances the uncertainty associated with cash flows from these businesses.

Furthermore,The operation of power generation and distribution facilities involves significant risks that could adversely affect our financial results.

The operation of power generation and distribution facilities involves many risks, including:

·       equipment failure causing unplanned outages;

·       failure of transmission systems;

·       the ability to obtain financingdependence on a commercially acceptable non-recourse basis in developing nations is difficult. Even whenspecified fuel source, including the transportation of fuel;

·       catastrophic event such non-recourse financing is available, lendersas fires, explosions, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and similar occurrences; and

·       environmental compliance.

Any of these risks could have an adverse effect on our generation and distribution facilities. In addition, a portion of our generation facilities were constructed many years ago. Older generating equipment may require ussignificant capital expenditures to make higher equity investmentskeep it operating at peak efficiency. This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgrading and improvement. Breakdown or provide greater credit support than historicallyfailure of one of our operating facilities may prevent the facility from performing under applicable power sales agreements which, in certain situations, could result in termination of the agreement or incurring a liability for liquidated damages.

As a result of the above risks and other potential hazards associated with the power generation and distribution industries, we may from time to time become exposed to significant liabilities for which we may not have been the case.adequate insurance coverage. Power generation involves hazardous activities, including acquiring, transporting and unloading fuel, operating large pieces of rotating equipment and delivering


electricity to transmission and distribution systems. In addition financingto natural risks, such as earthquake, flood, lightning, hurricane and wind, hazards, such as fire, explosion, collapse and machinery failure, are inherent risks in countries with less than investment grade sovereign credit ratingsour operations which may also requireoccur as a result of inadequate internal processes, technological flaws, human error or certain external events. The control and management of these risks are based on adequate development and training of personnel and on the existence of operational procedures, preventative maintenance plans and specific programs supported by quality control systems which minimize the possibility of the occurrence and impact of these risks.

The hazards described above can cause significant personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property, plant and equipment, contamination of, or damage to, the environment and suspension of operations. The occurrence of any one of these events may result in us being named as a defendant in lawsuits asserting claims for substantial participation by multilateral financing agencies. Theredamages, environmental cleanup costs, personal injury and fines and/or penalties. We maintain an amount of insurance protection that we believe is adequate, but there can be no assurance that our insurance will be sufficient or effective under all circumstances and against all hazards or liabilities to which we may be subject. A successful claim for which we are not fully insured could hurt our financial results and materially harm our financial condition. Further, due to rising insurance costs and changes in the insurance markets, we cannot provide assurance that insurance coverage will continue to be available at all or on terms similar to those presently available to us. Any such financing can be obtained when needed.losses not covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Our financial positionability to attract and results of operations may fluctuate significantly due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates.retain skilled people could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

We operateOur operating success and ability to carry out growth initiatives depends in many foreign environmentspart on our ability to retain executives and such investmentto attract and retain additional qualified personnel who have experience in foreign countries may be impacted by significant fluctuationsour industry and in foreign currency exchange rates. Our exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations results primarily from the translation exposure associated with the preparationoperating a company of our consolidated financial statements, as well as from transaction exposure associated with generating revenuessize and incurring expensescomplexity, including people in different currencies. While our consolidated financial statementsforeign businesses. The inability to attract and retain qualified personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business, because of the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacements. In particular we routinely are reported in U.S. dollars,required to assess the financial statementsand tax impacts of many of our subsidiaries outside the United Statescomplicated business transactions which occur on a worldwide basis. These assessments are prepared using the local currency as the functional currency and translated into U.S. dollars by applying an appropriate exchange rate. Asdependent on hiring personnel on a result, fluctuations in the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar relative to the local currencies in which our subsidiaries outside the United States report could cause significant fluctuations in our results. In addition, while our expenses with respect to foreign operations are generally denominated in the same currency as corresponding sales, we have transaction exposure to the extent our receipts and expenditures, including debt service expenditures, are not offsetting in any currency. Moreover, the costs of doing business abroad may increase as a result of adverse exchange rate fluctuations. Our financial position and results of operations have been significantly affected by fluctuations in the value of the Argentine peso, Brazilian real, the Dominican Republic peso, the Pakistani rupee and the Venezuelan bolivar relative to the U.S. dollar. Depreciation of the Argentine peso and Brazilian real has resulted in foreign currency translation and transaction losses, while the appreciation of those currencies has resulted in gains. Conversely, depreciation of the Venezuelan bolivar has resulted in foreign currency gains and appreciation has resulted in losses.

Our business is subject to substantial development uncertainties.

Certain of our subsidiaries and affiliates are in various stages of developing and constructing greenfield power plants, some but not all of which have signed long-term contracts or made similar arrangements for the sale of electricity. Successful completion depends upon overcoming substantial risks, including, but not limited to, risks relating to failures of siting, financing, construction, permitting, governmental approvals or the potential for termination of the power sales contract as a result of a failure to meet certain milestones. We believe that capitalized costs for projects under development are recoverable; however, we cannot assure you that any individual project will be completed and reach commercial operation. If these development efforts are not successful, we may abandon a project under development. At the time of abandonment, we would expense all capitalized development costs incurred in connection therewith and could incur additional losses associated with any related contingent liabilities.

Our acquisitions may not perform as expected.

Historically, we have achieved a majority of our growth through acquisitions. We plan to continue to grow our business through acquisitions. Although acquired businesses may have significant operating histories at the time we acquired them, we will have a limited or no history of owning and operating many of these businesses and possibly limited or no experience operating in the country or region where these businesses are located. Some of these businesses may be government owned and some may be operated as


part of a larger integrated utility prior to their acquisition. If we were to acquire any of these types of businesses, we cannot assure you that:

·       we will be successful in transitioning them to private ownership,

·       such businesses will perform as expected,

·       we will not incur unforeseen obligations or liabilities,

·       such business will generate sufficient cash flow to support the indebtedness incurred to acquire them or the capital expenditures needed to develop them, or

·       the rate of return from such businesses will justify our decision to invest our capital to acquire them.

Acquisitions have placed, and in the future may place, a strain on our internal accounting and managerial controls. In addition, our acquisitions outside the United States have required, and will require, us to hire personnelworldwide basis with sufficient expertise in U.S. GAAP to timely and accurately comply with ourU.S. reporting obligations. An inability to maintain adequate internal accounting and managerial controls and hire and retain qualified personnel could have an adverse affect on our ability to report our financial condition and results of operations.

MostWe have contractual obligations to certain customers to provide full requirements service, which makes it difficult to predict and plan for load requirements and may result in increased operating costs to certain of our contractbusinesses.

We have contractual obligations to certain customers to supply power to satisfy all or a portion of their energy requirements. The uncertainty regarding the amount of power that our power generation businesses areand distribution facilities must be prepared to supply to customers may increase our operating costs. A significant under or over-estimation of load requirements could result in our facilities not having enough or having too much power to cover their obligations, in which case we would be required to buy or sell power from or to third parties at prevailing market prices. Those prices may not be favorable and thus could increase our operating costs.

Much of our generation business is dependent to a large degree on one or a limited number of customers and a limited number of fuel suppliers.

MostMany of our contract generation businesses plants conduct business under long-term contracts. In these instances we rely on power sales contracts with one or a limited number of customers for the majority of, and in some case all of, the relevant plant’s output and revenues over the term of the power sales contract. The remaining termterms of the power sales contracts related to our contract generation power plants rangesrange from 1 to 25 years. Many of these businessesIn many cases, we also limit theirour exposure to


fluctuations in fuel prices by entering into long termlong-term contracts for fuel with a limited number of suppliers. TheIn these instances, the cash flows and results of operations of such businesses are dependent on the continued ability of their customers and suppliers to meet their obligations under the relevant power sales contract or fuel supply contract, respectively. Some of contract generation businesses’our long-term power sales agreements are for prices above current spot market prices. The loss of one or more significant power sales contracts or fuel supply contracts, or the failure by any of the parties to such contracts to fulfill itsour obligations thereunder, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have sought to reduce this counter-party credit risk for our contract generation businessesunder these contracts in part by entering into power sales contracts with utilities or other customers of strong credit quality and by obtaining guarantees from the sovereign government of the customer’s obligations. However, many of our contract generation businesses’ customers do not have, or have failed to maintain, an investment grade credit rating, and our generation businessesGeneration business can not always obtain government guarantees and if they do, the government does not always have an investment grade credit rating. We have also sought to reduce our credit risk by locating our plants in different geographic areas in order to mitigate the effects of regional economic downturns. However, we cannot assure youthere can be no assurance that our efforts to mitigate this risk will be successful.

Competition is increasing and could adversely affect us.

The power production markets in which we operate are characterized by numerous strong and capable competitors, many of whom may have extensive and diversified developmental or operating experience (including both domestic and international experience) and financial resources similar to or greater than ours.us. Further, in recent years, the power production industry has been characterized by strong and increasing competition with respect to both obtaining power sales agreements and acquiring existing power generation assets. In certain markets these factors have caused reductions in prices contained in new power sales agreements and, in many cases, have caused higher acquisition prices for existing assets


through competitive bidding practices. The evolution of competitive electricity markets and the development of highly efficient gas-fired power plants have also caused, or are anticipated to cause, price pressure in certain power markets where we sell or intend to sell power. There can be no assurance that theThe foregoing competitive factors will notcould have a material adverse effect on us.

Our distribution businesses are highly regulated.

Our distribution businesses face increased regulatory and political scrutiny in the normal conduct of their operations. This scrutiny may adversely impact our results of operations to the extent that such scrutiny or pressure prevents us from reducing losses as quickly as we planned or denies us a rate increase called for by our concession agreements. In general, our distribution businesses have lower margins and are more dependent on regulation to ensure expected annual rate increases for inflation, capital expenditures and increased fuel and power costs, among other things. There can be no assurance that these rate reviews will be granted, or occur in a timely manner.

Our ability to raise capital on favorable terms, to refinance existing corporate or subsidiary indebtedness or to fund operations, capital expenditures, future acquisitions, construction of greenfield projects could adversely affect our results of operations.

Our ability to arrange for financing on either a recourse or non-recourse basis and the costs of such capital are dependent on numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control, including

·       general economic and capital market conditions,

·       the availability of bank credit,

·       investor confidence,

·       the financial condition, performance, prospects and credit rating of our company in general and/or that of our subsidiary requiring the financing, and

·       changes in tax and securities laws which are conducive to raising capital.

Should future access to capital not be available, we may have to sell assets or decide not to build new plants or acquire existing facilities. While a decision not to build new plants or acquire existing facilities would not affect the results of operations of our currently operating facilities or facilities under construction, such a decision would affect our future growth.

Our business and results of operations could be adversely affected by changes in our operating performance or cost structure.

We are in the business of generating and distributing electricity, which involves certain risks that can adversely affect financial and operating performance, including:

·       changes in the availability of our generation facilities or distribution systems due to increases in scheduled and unscheduled plant outages, equipment failure, labor disputes, disruptions in fuel supply, inability to comply with regulatory or permit requirements or catastrophic events such as fires, floods, storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, explosions, terrorist acts or other similar occurrences; and

·       changes in our operating cost structure including, but not limited to, increases in costs relating to: gas, coal, oil and other fuel; fuel transportation; purchased electricity; operations, maintenance and repair; environmental compliance, including the cost of purchasing emissions offsets and capital expenditures to install environmental emission equipment; transmission access; and insurance.

Any of the above risks could adversely affect our business and results of operations, and our ability to meet our publicly announced projections or analystsanalysts’ expectations.

48





Our business is subject to substantial development uncertainties.

Certain of our subsidiaries and affiliates are in various stages of developing and constructing “greenfield” power plants, some but not all of which have signed long-term contracts or made similar arrangements for the sale of electricity. Successful completion depends upon overcoming substantial risks, including, but not limited to, risks relating to failures of siting, financing, construction, permitting, governmental approvals or the potential for termination of the power sales contract as a result of a failure to meet certain milestones. We believe that capitalized costs for projects under development are recoverable; however, there can be no assurance that any individual project will be completed and reach commercial operation. If these development efforts are not successful, we may abandon a project under development and write off the costs incurred in connection with such project. At the time of abandonment, we would expense all capitalized development costs incurred in connection therewith and could incur additional losses associated with any related contingent liabilities.

Our acquisitions may not perform as expected.

Historically, we have achieved a majority of our growth through acquisitions. We plan to continue to grow our business through acquisitions. Although acquired businesses may have significant operating histories, we will have a limited or no history of owning and operating many of these businesses and possibly limited or no experience operating in the country or region where these businesses are located. Some of these businesses may be government owned and some may be operated as part of a larger integrated utility prior to their acquisition. If we were to acquire any of these types of businesses, there can be no assurance that:

·       we will be successful in transitioning them to private ownership;

·       such businesses will perform as expected;

·       we will not incur unforeseen obligations or liabilities;

·       such business will generate sufficient cash flow to support the indebtedness incurred to acquire them or the capital expenditures needed to develop them; or

·       the rate of return from such businesses will justify our decision to invest our capital to acquire them.

In some of our joint venture projects, we have granted protective rights to minority holders or we own less than a majority of the equity in the project and do not manage or otherwise control the project, which entails certain risks.

We have invested in some joint ventures where we own less than a majority of the voting equity in the venture. Very often, we seek to exert a degree of influence with respect to the management and operation of projects in which we have less than a majority of the ownership interests by operating the project pursuant to a management contract, negotiating to obtain positions on management committees or to receive certain limited governance rights, such as rights to veto significant actions. However, we do not always have this type of control over the project in every instance; and we may be dependent on our co-venturers to operate such projects. Our co-venturers may not have the level of experience, technical expertise, human resources, management and other attributes necessary to operate these projects optimally. The approval of co-venturers also may be required for us to receive distributions of funds from projects or to transfer our interest in projects.

In some joint venture agreements where we do have majority control of the voting securities, we have entered into shareholder agreements granting protective minority rights to the other shareholders. In Brasiliana, for example, where we have a controlling equity position, BNDES (or its affiliates) own more than 49 percent of the voting equity. If BNDES decides to sell all of its shares, it has “drag along” rights with respect to our shares, which means that, if BNDES finds a third party buyer that wants to purchase its


shares and our shares, BNDES has the right to cause us to sell our shares in Brasiliana to this buyer. We do have certain protections against this drag along right, such as the price must be at least the fair market value of the shares, and we have a right to acquire all of BNDES shares at this same price. Nevertheless, if we declined to purchase the BNDES shares, we could be forced to sell our interest.

Our Alternative Energy businesses face uncertain operational risks.

In many instances, our Alternative Energy businesses target industries that are created by, or significantly affected by technological innovation or new lines of business that are outside our core expertise of Generation and Utilities. Given the nascent nature of these industries, our ability to predict actual performance results may be hindered and we ultimately may not be successful in these areas.

Our Alternative Energy businesses may experience higher levels of volatility.

Our Alternative Energy efforts are, to some degree, focused on new or emerging markets. As these markets develop, long-term fixed priced contracts for the major cost and revenue components may be unavailable, which may result in these businesses having relatively high levels of volatility.

Risks associated with Governmental Regulation and Laws

Our operations are subject to significant government regulation and our business and results of operations could be adversely affected by changes in the law or regulatory schemes.

We operate a portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses in 25 countries and, therefore, we are subject to significant and diverse government regulation. Our inability to predict, influence or respond appropriately to changes in law or regulatory schemes, including ourany inability to obtain expected or contracted increases in electricity tariff rates or tariff adjustments for increased expenses, could adversely impact our results of operations or our ability to meet our publicly announced projections or analyst’s expectations. Furthermore, changes in laws or regulations or changes in the application or interpretation of regulatory provisions in jurisdictions where we operate, particularly our regulated utilitiesUtilities where electricity tariffs are subject to regulatory review or approval, could adversely affect our business, including, but not limited to:

·       changes in the determination, definition or classification of costs to be included as reimbursable or pass-through costs,costs;

·       changes in the definition or determination of controllable or non-controllable costs,costs;

·       changes in the definition of events which may or may not qualify as changes in economic  equilibrium,equilibrium;

·       changes in the timing of tariff increases,increases; or

·       other changes in the regulatory determinations under the relevant concessions.

Our businesses, particularly our businesses in our competitive supply segment, may incur substantial costs and liabilities and be exposed to price volatility as a resultAny of risks associated with the wholesale electricity markets.

Our generation businesses, especially our businesses in the competitive supply segment, sell electricity in the wholesale spot markets. Our regulated utility businesses, and to the extent they require additional capacity our generations businesses, also buy electricity in the wholesale spot markets. As a result, we are exposed to the risks of rising and falling prices in those markets. The open market wholesale prices for electricity are very volatile and often reflect the fluctuating cost of coal, natural gas, or oil. Consequently, any changes in the supply and cost of coal, natural gas, and oil may impact the open market wholesale price of electricity.

A significant percentage of our generation facilities, particularly the facilities in our competitive supply segment, operate wholly or partially without long-term power sales agreements. As a result, power from these facilities is sold on the spot market or on a short-term contractual basis, which if not fully hedged may affect the volatility of our financial results. In addition, our business depends upon transmission facilities owned and operated by others; if transmission is disrupted or capacity is inadequate or unavailable, our ability to sell and deliver our wholesale power may be limited.

Volatility in market prices for fuel and electricityabove events may result from among other things:

·       weather conditions,

·       seasonality,

·       electricity usage,

·       illiquid markets,

·       transmission or transportation constraints or inefficiencies,

·       availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources,


·       demand for energy commodities,

·       available supplies of natural gas, crude oil and refined products, and coal,

·       generating unit performance,

·       natural disasters, terrorism, wars, embargoes and other catastrophic events,

·       federal and state energy and environmental regulation, legislation and policies,

·       geopolitical concerns affecting global supply of oil and natural gas, and

·       general economic conditions in areas where we generate which impact energy consumption.

We are a holding company and our ability to make payments on our outstanding indebtedness at the parent company level is dependent upon the receipt of funds from our subsidiaries by way of dividends, fees, interest, loans, or otherwise.

The AES Corporation is a holding company with no material assets, other than the stock of its subsidiaries. All of our revenue generating operations are conducted through our subsidiaries. Accordingly, almost all of our cash flow is generated by the operating activities of our subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and, unless they have expressly guaranteed any of our indebtedness, have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any amounts due pursuant to our debt or to make any funds available therefore, whether by dividends, fees, loans or other payments. While some of our subsidiaries guarantee our indebtedness under our senior secured credit facility and certain other indebtedness, none of our subsidiaries guarantee, or is otherwise obligated with respect to, our outstanding public debt securities. Accordingly, our ability to make payments on our indebtedness and to fund our other obligations at the parent company level is dependent not only on the ability of our subsidiaries to generate cash, but also on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute cash to us in the form of dividends, fees, interest, loans or otherwise. Most of our subsidiaries are obligated, pursuant to loan agreements, indentures or project financing arrangements, to satisfy certain restricted payment covenants or other conditions before they may make distributions to us. In addition, the payment of dividends or the making of loans, advances or other payments to us may be subject to legal or regulatory restrictions. Our subsidiaries in foreign countries may also be prevented from distributing funds to us as a result of restrictions imposed by the foreign government on repatriating funds or converting currencies. Any right we have to receive any assets of any of our subsidiaries upon any liquidation, dissolution, winding up, receivership, reorganization, assignmentlower margins for the benefit of creditors, marshaling of assets and liabilities or any bankruptcy, insolvency or similar proceedings (and the consequent right of the holders of our indebtedness to participate in the distribution of, or to realize proceeds from, those assets) will be effectively subordinated to the claims of any such subsidiary’s creditors (including trade creditors and holders of debt issued by such subsidiary).

We may not be able to raise sufficient capital to fund greenfield projects in certain less developed economies.

Commercial lending institutions sometimes refuse to provide non-recourse project financing (including financial guarantees) in certain less developed economies, thus we have sought and will continue to seek, in such locations, direct or indirect (through credit support or guarantees) project financing from a limited number of multilateral or bilateral international financial institutions or agencies. As a precondition to making such project financing available, these institutions may also require governmental guarantees of certain project and sovereign related risks. Depending on the policies of specific governments, such guarantees may not be offered and as a result, we may determine that sufficient financing will ultimately not be available to fund the related project. In addition, we are frequently required to provide more sponsor equity for projects that sell their electricity into the merchant market than for projects that sell their electricity under long term contracts.


A downgrade in our or our subsidiaries’ credit ratings couldaffected businesses, which can adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets which could increase our interest costs or adversely affect our liquidity and cash flow.

From time to time we rely on access to capital markets as a source of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows. If any of our or our subsidiaries credit ratings were to be downgraded, our ability to raise capital on favorable terms could be impaired and our borrowing costs would increase.

Furthermore, as a result of The AES Corporation’s credit ratings and the trading prices of its equity and debt securities, counter parties may no longer be as willing to accept general unsecured commitments by The AES Corporation to provide credit support. Accordingly, with respect to both new and existing commitments, The AES Corporation may be required to provide some other form of assurance, such as a letter of credit, to backstop or replace any credit support by The AES Corporation. We cannot provide assurance that such counter parties will accept such guarantees in the future. In addition, to the extent The AES Corporation is required and able to provide letters of credit or other collateral to such counterparties, it will limit the amount of credit available to The AES Corporation to meet its other liquidity needs.business.

Our generationGeneration business in the United States is subject to the provisions of various laws and regulations administered in whole or in part by the FERC, including the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978(“1978 (“PURPA”) and the Federal Power Act. The recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPAct 2005”) made a number of changes to these and other laws that may affect our business. Actions by the FERC and by state utility commissions can have a material effect on our operations.

EPAct 2005 authorizes the FERC to remove the obligation of electric utilities under Section 210 of PURPA to enter into new contracts for the purchase or sale of electricity from or to ‘Qualified Facilities’ (“QFs”) if certain market conditions are met. Pursuant to this authority, the FERC has recently proposed to remove the purchase/sale obligation for all utilities located within the control areas of the Midwest


Transmission System Operator, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., ISO New England, Inc. and the New York Independent System Operator. In addition, the FERC is authorized under the new law to remove the purchase/sale obligations of individual utilities on a case-by-case basis. While the new law does not affect existing contracts, as a result of the changes to PURPA, our QFs may face a more difficult market environment when their current long-term contracts expire.

EPAct 2005 repealed PUHCA of 1935 and enacted PUHCA of 2005 in its place. PUHCA 1935 had the effect of requiring utility holding companies to operate in geographically proximate regions and therefore limited the range of potential combinations and mergers among utilities. By comparison PUHCA 2005 has no such restrictions and simply provides the FERC and state utility commissions with enhanced access to the books and records of certain utility holding companies. The repeal of PUHCA 1935 may spur an increased number of mergers and the creation of large, geographically dispersed utility holding companies. These entities may have enhanced financial strength and therefore an increased ability to compete with usthe Company in the U.S. generation market.

In accordance with Congressional mandates in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and now in EPAct 2005, the FERC has strongly encouraged competition in wholesale electric markets. Increased competition may have the effect of lowering our operating margins. Among other steps the FERC has encouraged regional transmission organizations and independent system operators to develop demand response bidding programs as a mechanism for responding to peak electric demand. These programs may reduce the value of our peaking assets which rely on very high prices during a relatively small number of hours to recover their costs. Similarly, the FERC is encouraging the construction of new transmission infrastructure in accordance with provisions of EPAct 2005. Although new transmission lines may increase our market opportunities, they may also increase the competition in our existing markets.

While the FERC continues to promote competition, some state utility commissions have reversed course and begun to encourage the construction of generation facilities by traditional utilities to be paid


for on a cost-of-service basis by retail ratepayers. Such actions have the effect of reducing sale opportunities in the competitive wholesale generating markets in which we operate.

Finally, EPAct 2005 affects nearly every aspect of the energy business and energy regulation. We are still in the process of analyzing the new law’s effects, and those effects could have a material adverse effect on our business.

WeOur businesses are subject to material litigation and regulatory proceedings.

We and our affiliates are parties to material litigation and regulatory proceedings. Investors should review the descriptions of such matters contained in this annual report, as well as our other periodic reports we file in the future with the Commission. There can be no assurances that the outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position.

Our business is subject to stringent environmental laws and regulations.

Our activities are subject to stringent environmental laws and regulation by many federal, state, local authorities, international treaties and foreign governmental authorities. These regulations generally involve emissions into the air, effluents into the water, use of water, wetlands preservation, waste disposal, endangered species and noise regulation, among others. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations or to obtain any necessary environmental permits pursuant to such laws and regulations could result in fines or other sanctions. Environmental laws and regulations affecting power generation and distribution are complex and have tended to become more stringent over time. Congress and other domestic and foreign governmental authorities have either considered or implemented various laws and regulations to restrict or tax certain emissions, particularly those involving air and water emissions. See the various descriptions of these laws and regulations contained in this annual reportAnnual Report on Form 10-K under the caption “Regulation Matters—Environmental and Land Use Regulations.” These laws and regulations have imposed, and proposed laws and regulations could impose in the future, additional costs on the operation of our power plants. We have made and will continue to make significant capital and other expenditures to comply with these and other environmental laws and regulations. Changes in, or new, environmental restrictions may force us to incur significant expenses or that may exceed our estimates. There can be no assurance that we would be able to recover all or any increased environmental costs from our customers or that our business, financial condition or results of operations would not be materially and


adversely affected by such expenditures or any changes in domestic or foreign environmental laws and regulations.

Catastrophic events could adversely affectWe and our facilitiesaffiliates are subject to material litigation and operations.regulatory proceedings.

Catastrophic events such as fires, explosions, terrorist acts or natural disasters such as floods or tornadoes, or other similar occurrences could adversely affect our facilities, operations, earnings and cash flow.

Our business is sensitive to variations in weather and seasonal variations.

The energy business is affected by variations in general weather conditions and unusually severe weather. We forecast electric sales on the basis of normal weather, which represents a long-term historical average. Significant variations from normal weather (such as warmer winters and cooler summers) where our business are located could have a material impact on our results of operations. Storms that interrupt our services to our customers have in the past required us, and in the future may require us, to incur significant costs to restore services.

52




Some of our subsidiaries participate in defined benefit pension plans and their net pension plan obligations may require additional significant contributions.

Certain of our subsidiaries have defined benefit pension plans covering substantially all of their respective employees. Of the thirteen defined benefit plans, two are at U.S. subsidiaries and the remaining plans are at foreign subsidiaries. Pension costs are based upon a number of actuarial assumptions, including an expected long-term rate of return on pension plan assets, the expected life span of pension plan beneficiaries and the discount rate used to determine the present value of future pension obligations. Any of these assumptions could prove to be wrong, resulting in a shortfall of pension plan assets compared to pension obligations under the pension plan. Our subsidiaries who participate in these plans are responsible for funding any shortfall of pension plan assets compared to pension obligations under the pension plan. Future downturns in the equity markets, or the failure of any of our assumptions underlying the estimates of our subsidiaries’ pension plan obligations to prove correct, could increase the underfunding of the pension plan. This may necessitate additional cash contributions to the pension plans that could adversely affect our and our subsidiaries’ liquidity.

See “Management’s Discussionaffiliates are parties to material litigation and Analysisregulatory proceedings. Investors should review the descriptions of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Estimates—Pension and Postretirement Obligations” and footnote 12 to our consolidated financial statements includedsuch matters contained in this annual report, on Form 10-K.

The operationas well as the other periodic reports that we file in the future with the SEC. There can be no assurances that the outcome of power generation facilities involves significant risks that could adversely affect our financial results.

The operation of power generation facilities involves many risks, including:

·       equipment failure causing unplanned outages,

·       failure of transmission systems,

·       the dependence onsuch matters will not have a specified fuel source, including the transportation of fuel, or

·       the impact of unusual or adverse weather conditions (including natural disasters such as hurricanes) or

·       environmental compliance

Any of these risks could have anmaterial adverse effect on our generation facilities. A portionconsolidated financial position.

The SEC is conducting an informal inquiry relating to our restatements.

The Company has been cooperating with an informal inquiry by the SEC Staff concerning the Company’s restatements and related matters, and has been providing information and documents to the SEC Staff on a voluntary basis. Because the Company is unable to predict the outcome of our generation facilities were constructed many years ago. Older generating equipmentthis inquiry, the SEC Staff may require significant capital expenditures to keep it operating at peak efficiency. This equipment is also likely to require periodic upgradingdisagree with the manner in which the Company has accounted for and improvement. Breakdown or failure of one of our operating facilities may preventreported the facility from performing under applicable power sales agreements which, in certain situations, could result in terminationfinancial impact of the agreementadjustments to previously filed financial statements and there may be a risk that the inquiry by the SEC could lead to circumstances in which the Company may have to further restate previously filed financial statements, amend prior filings or incurring a liability for liquidated damages.take other actions not currently contemplated.

We may not fully hedge our exposure against changes in commodity prices.

To lower our financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, we routinely enter into contracts to hedge a portion of our purchase and sale commitments for electricity, fuel requirements and other commodities. As part of this strategy, we routinely utilize fixed-price forward physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and option contracts traded in the over-the-counter markets or on exchanges. However, we may not cover the entire exposure of our assets or positions to market price volatility, and the coverage will vary over time. Fluctuating commodity prices may negatively impact our financial results to the extent we have unhedged positions.


ITEM 1B.         UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2.                 PROPERTIES

We maintain offices in many places around the world, generally pursuant to the provisions of long- and short-term leases, none of which are material. With a few exceptions, our facilities, which are described in Item 1 of this Form 10-K, are subject to mortgages or other liens or encumbrances as part of the project’s related finance facility. In addition, the majority of our facilities are located on land that is leased. However, in a few instances, no accompanying project financing exists for the facility, and in a few of these cases, the land interest may not be subject to any encumbrance and is owned outright by the subsidiary or affiliate.

ITEM 3.                 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is involved in certain claims, suits and legal proceedingsIn 1989, Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S.A. (“Eletrobrás”) filed suit in the normal courseFifth District Court in the State of business. The Company has accruedRio de Janeiro against Eletropaulo Eletricidade de São Paulo S.A. (“EEDSP”) relating to the methodology for calculating monetary adjustments under the parties’ financing agreement. In April 1999, the Fifth District Court found for Eletrobrás and, in September 2001, Eletrobrás initiated an execution suit in the Fifth District Court to collect approximately R$762 million (US$365 million) from Eletropaulo and a lesser amount from an unrelated company, Companhia de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica Paulista (“CTEEP”) (Eletropaulo and CTEEP were spun off of EEDSP pursuant to its privatization in 1998). Eletropaulo appealed and, in September 2003, the Appellate Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro ruled that Eletropaulo was not a proper party to the litigation because any alleged liability was transferred to CTEEP pursuant to the privatization. Subsequently, both Eletrobrás and claims where it is probableCTEEP filed separate appeals to the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”). In June 2006, the SCJ reversed the Appellate Court’s decision and remanded the case to the Fifth District Court for further proceedings, holding that Eletropaulo’s liability, if any, should be determined by the Fifth District Court. Eletropaulo subsequently filed a liability has been incurredmotion for clarification of that decision, which was denied in February 2007. In April 2007 Eletropaulo filed appeals with the Special Court (the highest court within the SCJ) and the Supreme Court of Brazil. Eletrobras may resume the execution suit in the Fifth District Court at any time. If Eletrobras does so, Eletropaulo may be required to provide security in the amount of lossits alleged liability. Eletropaulo believes it has meritorious


defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based upon informationno assurances that it currently possesses and taking into account established reserves for estimated liabilities andwill be successful in its insurance coverage, that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and actions is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements. It is possible, however, that some matters could be decided unfavorably to the Company, and could require the Company to pay damages or to make expenditures in amounts that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.efforts.

In September 1999, a Brazilianstate appellate state court ofin Minas Gerais, Brazil, granted a temporary injunction suspending the effectiveness of a shareholders’ agreement between Southern Electric Brasil Participacoes, Ltda. (“SEB”) and the state of Minas Gerais concerning CEMIG. AES’Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais (“CEMIG”), an integrated utility in Minas Gerais. The Company’s investment in CEMIG is through SEB. This shareholders’ agreement granted SEB certain rights and powers in respect of CEMIG (“Special Rights”). In March 2000, a lower state court in Minas Gerais held the shareholders’ agreement invalid where it purported to grant SEB the Special Rights and the lower state court enjoined the exercise of the Special Rights. In August 2001, the state appellate court denied an appeal of the merits decision and extended the injunction. In October 2001, SEB filed two appeals against the decision on the merits of the state appellate court, one appeal tocourt’s decision with the Federal Superior Court and the other appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. The state appellate court denied access of these two appeals to the higher courts, and in August 2002 SEB filed two interlocutory appeals against such decision, one directed todenial with the Federal Superior Court and the other to the Supreme Court of Justice. In December 2004, the Federal Superior Court declined to hear SEB’s appeal. However, the Supreme Court of Justice is considering whether to hear SEB’s appeal. SEB intends to vigorously pursue a restoration of the value of its investment in CEMIG by all legal means; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts. Failure to prevail in this matter may limit SEB’s influence on the daily operation of CEMIG.

In August 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) announced an investigation into the organized California wholesale power markets in order to determine whether rates were just and reasonable. Further investigations involved alleged market manipulation. FERC requested documents from each of the AES Southland, LLC plants and AES Placerita, Inc. AES Southland and AES Placerita have cooperated fully with the FERC investigation. AES Southland was not subject to refund liability because it did not sell into the organized spot markets due to the nature of its tolling agreement. AES Placerita is currently subject to refund liability of $588,000 plus interest for spot sales to the California Power Exchange from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001 (“Refund Period”). In September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order addressing FERC’s decision not to impose refunds for the alleged failure to file rates, including transaction-specific data, for sales during 2000 and 2001 (“September 2004 Decision”). Although it did not order refunds, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to FERC for a refund proceeding to consider remedial options. The Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed the remand to FERC until June 13, 2007, so that settlement discussions may take place. AES Placerita and other parties are also seeking review of the September 2004 Decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, in August 2006 in a separate case, the Ninth Circuit confirmed the Refund Period, expanded the transactions subject to refunds to include multi-day transactions, expanded the potential liability of sellers to include any pre-Refund Period tariff violations, and remanded the matter to FERC (“August 2006 Decision”). The Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed its August 2006 Decision until June 13, 2007, to facilitate settlement discussions. The August 2006 Decision may allow FERC to reopen closed investigations and order relief. Placerita made sales during the periods at issue in the September 2004 and August 2006 Decisions. Both appeals may be subject to further court review, and further FERC proceedings on remand would be required to determine potential liability, if any. Prior to the August 2006 Decision, AES Placerita’s potential liability could have approximated $23 million plus interest. However, given the September 2004 and August 2006 Decisions, it is unclear whether AES Placerita’s potential liability is less than or exceeds that amount. AES Placerita believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

65




In November 2000, the Company was named in a purported class action suit along with six other defendants, alleging unlawful manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market, allegedly resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices throughout California. The alleged causes of action include violation of the Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On July 30, 2001, the Court remanded the case to San Diego Superior Court. The case was consolidated with five other lawsuits alleging similar claims against other defendants. In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a new master complaint in the consolidated action, which reasserted the claims raised in the earlier action and names the Company,


AES Redondo Beach, LLC, AES Alamitos, LLC, and AES Huntington Beach, LLC as defendants. In May 2002, the case was removed by certain cross-defendants from the San Diego County Superior Court to the United StatesU.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which was granted on December 13, 2002. Certain defendants appealed aspects of that decision to the United StatesU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. OnIn December 8, 2004, a panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the District Court, and remanding the case to state court. OnIn July 8, 2005, defendants filed a demurrer in state court seeking dismissal of the case in its entirety. OnIn October 3, 2005, the court sustained the demurrer and entered an order of dismissal. OnIn December 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to any actions asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously against the allegations.

In August 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) announced an investigation into the organized California wholesale power markets in order to determine whether rates were just and reasonable. Further investigations involved alleged market manipulation. The FERC requested documents from each of the AES Southland plants and AES Placerita. AES Southland and AES Placerita have cooperated fullyappeal with the FERC investigation. AES Southland is not subject to refund liability because itCalifornia Court of Appeal. In February 2007, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Court’s judgment of dismissal. Plaintiffs did not sell intoappeal the organized spot markets due to the nature of its tolling agreement. AES Placerita is currently subject to refund liability of $586,000 for sales to the California Power Exchange. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the appeal of the FERC’s decision not to impose refunds for the alleged failure to file rates including transaction specific data for sales during 2000 and 2001. Although in its order issued on September 9, 2004 the Ninth Circuit did not order refunds, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for a refund proceeding to consider remedial options. That remand order is stayed pending rehearing at the Ninth Circuit. In addition, in a separate case, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the time and scope of the refunds. Placerita made sales during the time period at issue in the appeals. Depending on the result of the appeals, the method of calculating refunds and the time period to which the method is applied, the alleged refunds sought from AES Placerita could approximate $23 million.Appeal’s decision.

In August 2001, the Grid Corporation of Orissa, India (“Gridco”), filed a petition against the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (“CESCO”), an affiliate of the Company, with the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (“OERC”), alleging that CESCO had defaulted on its obligations as an OERC-licensed distribution company, that CESCO management abandoned the management of CESCO, and asking for interim measures of protection, including the appointment of an administrator to manage CESCO. Gridco, a state-owned entity, is the sole wholesale energy provider to CESCO. Pursuant to the OERC’s August 2001 order, the management of CESCO was replaced with a government administrator who was appointed by the OERC. The OERC later held that the Company and other CESCO shareholders were not necessary or proper parties to the OERC proceeding. In August 2004, the OERC issued a notice to CESCO, the Company and others giving the recipients of the notice until November 2004 to show cause why CESCO’s distribution license should not be revoked. In response, CESCO submitted a business plan to the OERC. In February 2005, the OERC issued an order rejecting the proposed business plan. The order also stated that the CESCO distribution license would be revoked if an acceptable business plan for CESCO was not submitted to, and approved by, the OERC prior to March 31, 2005. In its April 2, 2005 order, the OERC revoked the CESCO distribution license. CESCO has filed an appeal against the April 2, 2005 OERC order and that appeal remains pending in the Indian courts. In addition, Gridco asserted that a comfort letter issued by the Company in connection with the Company’s indirect investment in CESCO obligates the Company to provide additional financial support to cover all of CESCO’s financial obligations to Gridco. In December 2001, Gridco served a notice to arbitrate pursuant to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 on the Company, AES Orissa Distribution Private Limited (“AES ODPL”), and Jyoti Structures (“Jyoti”) pursuant to the terms of the CESCO Shareholders Agreement between Gridco, the Company, AES ODPL, Jyoti and CESCO (the


“CESCO “CESCO arbitration”). In the arbitration, Gridco appears to seek approximately $188.5 million in damages plus undisclosed penalties and interest, but a detailed alleged damages analysis has yet to be filed by Gridco. The Company has counter-claimedcounterclaimed against Gridco for damages. An arbitration hearing with respect to liability was conducted on August 3-9,9, 2005 in India. Final written arguments regarding liability were submitted by the parties to the arbitral tribunal in late October 2005. A decision on liability may be issued in the near future. Ahas not yet been issued. Moreover, a petition remains pending before the Indian Supreme Court concerning fees of the third neutral arbitrator and the venue of future hearings with respect to the CESCO arbitration. The


Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to any actionsthe claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously against the allegations.in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In December 2001, a petition was filed by Gridco in the local India courts seeking an injunction to prohibit the Company and its subsidiaries from selling their shares in Orissa Power Generation Company Pvt. Ltd. (“OPGC”), an affiliate of the Company, pending the outcome of the above-mentioned CESCO arbitration. OPGC, located in Orissa, is a 420 MW coal-based electricity generation business from which Gridco is the sole off-taker of electricity. Gridco obtained a temporary injunction, but the District Court eventually dismissed Gridco’s petition for an injunction in March 2002. Gridco appealed to the Orissa High Court, which in January 2005 allowed the appeal and granted the injunction. The Company has appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of India. In May 2005, the Supreme Court adjourned this matter until August 2005. In August 2005, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter again to await the award of the arbitral tribunal in the CESCO arbitration. The Company believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses to any actions asserted against it and will defend itselfassert them vigorously against the allegations.in these proceedings; however there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In early 2002, Gridco made an application to the OERC requesting that the OERC initiate proceedings regarding the terms of OPGC’s existing power purchase agreement (“PPA”) with Gridco. In response, OPGC filed a petition in the India courts to block any such OERC proceedings. In early 2005 the Orissa High Court upheld the OERC’s jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings as requested by Gridco. OPGC appealed thatthe High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court and sought stays of both the High Court’s decision and the underlying OERC proceedings regarding the PPAPPA’s terms. In April 2005, the Supreme Court granted OPGC’s requests and ordered stays of the High Court’s decision and the OERC proceedings with respect to the PPAPPA’s terms. The matter is awaiting further hearing. Unless the Supreme Court finds in favor of OPGC’s appeal or otherwise prevents the OERC’s proceedings regarding the PPA terms, the OERC will likely lower the tariff payable to OPGC under the PPA, which would have an adverse impact on OPGC’s financials. The CompanyOPGC believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses to any actions asserted against it and will defend itselfassert them vigorously against the allegations.in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In JulyApril 2002, the Company, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant, and Barry J. Sharp were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. In September 2002, two virtually identical complaints were filed against the same defendants in the same court. All three lawsuits purported to be filed on behalf of a class of all persons who exchanged their shares of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (“IPALCO”) common stock for shares of AES common stock issued pursuant to a registration statement dated and filed with, the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2000. The complaints purported to allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on statements in or omissions from the registration statement concerning certain secured equity-linked loans by AES subsidiaries, the supposedly volatile nature of AES stock, as well as AES’ allegedly unhedged operations in the United Kingdom at that time, and the alleged effect of the New Electrical Trading Agreements on AES’ United Kingdom operations. On April 14, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint, which added former IPALCO directors and officers John R. Hodowal, Ramon L. Humke and John R. Brehm as defendants and, in addition to the purported claims in the original complaints, purported to allege against the newly added defendants violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9


promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint also purported to add a claim based on alleged misstatements or omissions concerning an alleged breach by AES of alleged obligations AES owed to Williams Energy Services Co. (“Williams”) under an agreement between the two companies in connection with the California energy market. On September 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint. By Order dated November 17, 2004, the Court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the amended and consolidated complaint against all defendants exceptpension committee for the claim alleging that the registration statement and prospectus disseminated to the IPALCO stockholders for purposes of the share exchange transaction failed to disclose AES’ purported temporary default on its contract with Williams. On December 15, 2004, the AES defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the remaining claims. On July 7, 2005, the district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered an order dismissing all claims and thereby terminating this action in the district court. The time to file an appeal to the action has expired without the filing of an appeal.

In April 2002, IPALCOIndianapolis Power & Light Company thrift plan (“Pension Committee”), and certain former officers and directors of IPALCO were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United StatesU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. OnIn May 28, 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. The amended complaint asserts that IPALCO and former members of the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Company thrift planPension Committee breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act by investing assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by the Company. In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a class action. TheSeptember 2003 the Court granted theplaintiffs’ motion for class certification on September 30, 2003. Oncertification. In October 31, 2003 the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability. OnIn August 11, 2005, the Court issued an Orderorder denying the summary judgment motions, but striking one defense asserted by defendants. A trial addressing only the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty began on February 21, 2006 and concluded on February 28, 2006. Post trial briefs are due by April 6, 2006, and responses are due by April 20, 2006. A decision will follow sometime thereafter. If the Court rules against the IPALCO defendants, one or more trials on reliance, damages, and other issues will be conducted separately. IPALCO believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

In November 2002, Stone & Webster, Inc. (“S&W”) filed a lawsuit against AES Wolf Hollow, L.P. (“AESWH”) and AES Frontier, L.P. (“AESF,” and, collectively with AESWH, “sub-subsidiaries”) in the District Court of Hood County, Texas. At the time of filing, AESWH and AESF were two indirect subsidiaries of the Company, but in December 2004, the Company finalized agreements to transfer the ownership of AESWH and AESF. S&W contracted with AESWH and AESF in March 2002 to perform the engineering, procurement and construction of the Wolf Hollow project, a gas-fired combined cycle power plant in Hood County, Texas. In its initial complaint, filed in November 2002, S&W requested a declaratory judgment that a fire that took place at the project on June 16, 2002 constituted a force majeure event, and that S&W was not required to pay rebates assessed for associated delays. As part of the initial complaint, S&W also sought to enjoin AESWH and AESF from drawing down on letters of credit provided by S&W. The Court refused to issue the injunction, and the sub-subsidiaries drew down on the letters of credit and withheld milestone payments from S&W. S&W has since amended its complaint five times and joined additional parties, including the Company and Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group, Inc. In addition to the claims already mentioned, the current claims by S&W include claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, wrongful liquidated damages, foreclosure of lien, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. S&W appears to assert damages against the sub-subsidiaries and the Company in the amount of $114 million in recently filed expert reports and seeks exemplary damages. S&W filed a lien against the ownership interests of AESWH and AESF in the property, with each lien allegedly valued, after amendment on March 14, 2005, at approximately $87 million. In January 2004, the Company filed a counterclaim against S&W and its parent, the Shaw Group, Inc. (“Shaw”). AESWH and AESF filed


answers and counterclaims against S&W, which since have been amended. The amount of AESWH and AESF’s counterclaims are approximately $215 million, according to calculations of the sub-subsidiaries and of an expert retained in connection with the litigation, minus the Contract balance, not earned as of December 31, 2005, to the knowledge or the Company, in the amount of $45.8 million. In March 2004, S&W and Shaw each filed an answer to the counterclaims. The counterclaims and answers subsequently were amended. In March 2005, the Court rescheduled the trial date for October 24, 2005. In September 2005, the trial date was re-scheduled for June 2006. In November 2005, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims asserted against it by S&W. On February 21, 20062007, the Court issued a letter ruling grantingdecision in favor of the Company’s motion for summary judgmentdefendants and directingdismissed the Company to submit a proposed order. On February 22, 2006 the Company submitted a proposed order, which has been objected to by S&W and Shaw. On March 15, 2006, S&W moved to reconsiderlawsuit with prejudice. In April 2007, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision granting the Company’s summary judgment motion. A decision on the proposed order and the motion for reconsideration are pending; the Court has yet to enter a final order on the Company’s summary judgment motion. The Company believes that the allegations in S&W’s complaint are meritless, and that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted by S&W. The Company intendsU.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as to defend the lawsuitformer officers and pursue its claims vigorously.directors of IPALCO, but not as to IPALCO or the Pension Committee.

In March 2003, the office of the Federal Public Prosecutor for the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil (“MPF”) notified AES Eletropaulo that it had commenced an inquiry related to the BNDESBrazilian National Development Bank (“BNDES”) financings provided to AES Elpa and AES TransgasTransgás and the rationing loan provided to AES Eletropaulo, changes in the control of AES Eletropaulo, sales of assets by AES Eletropaulo and the quality of service provided by AES Eletropaulo to its customers, and requested various documents from AES Eletropaulo relating to these matters. In October 2003 this inquiry was sent toJuly 2004, the MPF for continuing investigation. Alsofiled a public civil lawsuit in March 2003,federal court


alleging that BNDES violated Law 8429/92 (the Administrative Misconduct Act) and BNDES’s internal rules by: (1) approving the Commission for Public Works and Services of the Sao Paulo Congress requested AES Eletropaulo to appear at a hearing concerning the alleged default by AES Elpa and AES TransgasTransgás loans; (2) extending the payment terms on the BNDES financingsAES Elpa and AES Transgás loans; (3) authorizing the qualitysale of service rendered byEletropaulo’s preferred shares at a stock-market auction; (4) accepting Eletropaulo’s preferred shares to secure the loan provided to Eletropaulo; and (5) allowing the restructurings of Light Serviços de Eletricidade S.A. (“Light”) and Eletropaulo. The MPF also named AES Eletropaulo. This hearing was postponed indefinitely.Elpa and AES Transgás as defendants in the lawsuit because they allegedly benefited from BNDES’s alleged violations. In addition,June 2005, AES Elpa and AES Transgás presented their preliminary answers to the charges. In May 2006, the federal court ruled that the MPF could pursue its claims based on the first, second, and fourth alleged violations noted above. The MPF subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal seeking to require the federal court to consider all five alleged violations. Also, in April 2003,July 2006, AES Elpa and AES Transgás filed an interlocutory appeal seeking to enjoin the officefederal court from considering any of the MPF notifiedalleged violations. The MPF’s lawsuit before the federal court has been stayed pending those interlocutory appeals. AES Eletropaulo that it is conducting an inquiry into possible errors relatedElpa and AES Transgás believe they have meritorious defenses to the collection by AES Eletropaulo of customers’ unpaid past-due debtsallegations asserted against them and requesting the company to justify its procedures. In December 2003, ANEEL answered, as requested by the MPF,will defend themselves vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that the issue regarding the past-due debts are tothey will be includedsuccessful in the analysis to the revision of the “General Conditions for the Electric Energy Supply.”their efforts.

In May 2003, there were press reports of allegations that Light colluded with Enron in April 1998 Light Serviços de Eletricidade S.A. (“Light”) colluded with Enron in connection with the auction of AES Eletropaulo. Enron and Light were among three potential bidders for AES Eletropaulo. At the time of the transaction in 1998, AES owned less than 15% of theLight’s stock of Light and shared representation in Light’s management and Board with three other shareholders. In June 2003, the Secretariat of Economic Law forof the Brazilian DepartmentMinistry of Economic Protection and DefenseJustice of Brazil (“SDE”) issued a notice of preliminary investigation seeking information from a number of entities, including AES Brasil Energia, with respect to certainthe allegations arising out ofin the privatization ofpress reports. As AES Eletropaulo. OnBrasil Energia was incorrectly cited in the original complaint, in August 1, 2003, AES Elpa responded on behalf of AES-affiliated companies and denied knowledge of these allegations. The SDE began a follow-up administrative proceeding as reported in a notice published onin October 31, 2003. In response to the Secretary of Economic Law’sSDE’s official letters requesting explanations on such accusation,the accusations, AES EletropauloElpa filed its defense onin January 19, 2004. OnIn April 7, 2005, AES EletropauloElpa responded to aan SDE request for additional information. On July 11,In June 2005, the SDE ruled thatdismissed the case was dismissed due to the passing ofbecause the statute of limitations had expired and its investigation had found no evidence supporting the allegations. Subsequently, the case was subsequently sent to the SuperiorAdministrative Council offor Economic Defense (“CADE”), the SDEBrazilian antitrust authority, for final review of the decision. Furthermore, the São Paulo’s State Public Attorney's Office and the Federal Public Attorney’s Office issued separate opinions concluding that the case should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. The São Paulo’s State Public Attorney’s Office further found that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. These opinions were ratified by the relevant state and federal courts. In January 2007, CADE decided by unanimous vote of its Counselors to close the case.

58




AES Florestal, Ltd., (“Florestal”), had been operating a wooden utility pole manufacturer located in Triunfo,factory and had other assets, including a wooded area known as “Horto Renner”, in the stateState of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil has(collectively, “Property”). AES Florestal had been operated byunder the control of AES Sul since October 1997, as part of the originalwhen AES Sul was created pursuant to a privatization transaction by the Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. After it came under the control of AES Sul, Brazil, that created Sul. From 1997 toAES Florestal performed an environmental audit of the present,entire operational cycle at the chemical compound chromated copper arsenate was used by Florestal to chemically treat the poles under an operating license issued by the Brazilian government. Prior to 1997, another chemical, creosote, was used to treat the poles. After becoming the operator of Florestal, Sulpole factory. The audit discovered approximately 200 barrels of solid creosote waste onand other contaminants at the pole factory. The audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia Elétrica (CEEE), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. AES Sul and AES Florestal property. In 2002,subsequently took the initiative of communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. The Public Attorney’s Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry No. 02/02) was initiatedn. 24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has requested that the police station of Triunfo institute a Police Investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential criminal lawsuit wasliability regarding the contamination at the pole factory. The environmental agency (“FEPAM”) has also started a procedure (Procedure n. 088200567/05 9) to analyze the measures that shall be taken to contain and remediate the contamination. The measures that must be taken by AES


Sul and CEEE are still under discussion. Also, in March 2000, AES Sul filed suit against CEEE in the city2nd Court of Triunfo’s Judiciary both byPublic Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in AES Sul’s name the Property that it acquired through the privatization but that remained registered in CEEE’s name. During those proceedings, a court-appointed expert acknowledged that AES Sul had paid for the Property but opined that the Property could not be re-registered in AES Sul’s name because CEEE did not have authority to transfer the Property through the privatization. Therefore, AES waived its claim to re-register the Property and asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property. That claim is pending. Moreover, in February 2001, CEEE and the State of Rio Grande do Sul brought suit in the 7th Court of Public Prosecutors’ officeTreasure of Porto Alegre against AES Sul, AES Florestal, and certain public agents that participated in the city of Triunfo.privatization. The civil lawsuit was settled in 2003,plaintiffs alleged that the public agents unlawfully transferred assets and on June 27,created debts during the privatization. In 2005, the criminal lawsuitcontrol of AES Florestal was dismissed.transferred from AES Sul to AES Guaíba II in accordance with Federal Law n. 10848/04.  AES Florestal hired an independent environmental assessment company to perform an environmental audit ofsubsequently became a non-operative company. In November 2005, the operational cycle at Florestal. Florestal submitted an action planCourt ruled that was accepted by the environmental authority under which it voluntarily offered to do containment work at the site. Companhia Estadual de Energia Elétrica (“CEEE”), which controlled Florestal prior to the privatization, has disputed the transfer of Florestal in the privatization, and has sought its return. A court decision recently determined that CEEE has rights of ownership in Florestal, and the company willProperty must be returned to CEEE. Subsequently, AES Sul will demandand CEEE jointly possessed the returnProperty for a time, but CEEE has had sole possession of that portionHorto Renner since September 2006 and of the purchase price paid inrest of the privatization for Florestal.Property since April 2006.

OnIn January 27, 2004, the Company received notice of a “Formulation of Charges” filed against the Company by the Superintendence of Electricity of the Dominican Republic. In the “Formulation of Charges,” the Superintendence asserts that the existence of three generation companies (Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A., (“Itabo”) Dominican Power Partners, and AES Andres BV) and one distribution company (Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, S.A.) in the Dominican Republic, violates certain cross-ownership restrictions contained in the General Electricity law of the Dominican Republic. OnIn February 10, 2004, the Company filed in the First Instance Court of the National District of the Dominican Republic (“Court”) an action seeking injunctive relief based on several constitutional due process violations contained in the “Formulation of Charges” (“Constitutional Injunction”). On or aboutIn February 24, 2004, the Court granted the Constitutional Injunction and ordered the immediate cessation of any effects of the “Formulation of Charges,” and the enactment by the Superintendence of Electricity of a special procedure to prosecute alleged antitrust complaints under the General Electricity Law. OnIn March 1, 2004, the Superintendence of Electricity appealed the Court’s decision. On or aboutIn July 12, 2004, the Company divested any interest in Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, S.A. The Superintendence of Electricity’s appeal is pending. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and intendswill defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In April 2004, BNDES filed a collection suit against SEB to obtain the payment of R$3.3 billion (US$1.6 billion) under the loan agreement between BNDES and SEB, the proceeds of which were used by SEB to acquire shares of CEMIG. In May 2004, the 15th Federal Circuit Court ordered the attachment of SEB's CEMIG shares, which were given as collateral for the loan, as well as dividends paid by CEMIG to SEB. At the time of the attachment, the shares were worth approximately R$762 million (US$247 million). In March 2007, the dividends were determined to be worth approximately R$423 million (US$ 210 million). SEB’s defense was ruled groundless by the Circuit Court in December 2006. In January 2007, SEB filed an appeal to the relevant Federal Court of Appeals. BNDES may attempt to seize the attached CEMIG shares and withdraw the dividends at any time. SEB believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend this lawsuit vigorously.itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In July 2004, the Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (“CDEEE”), which is the government entity that currently owns 50% of Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A. (“Itabo”), filed two lawsuits against Itabo, an AES affiliate and another lawsuit against Ede Este, a former indirect subsidiary of AES. The lawsuits against Itabo also name the former president of Itabo as a defendant. In one of the lawsuits against Itabo, CDEEE requested an accounting of all transactions between Itabo and related parties. On November 29, 2004,Company, in the First Roomand Fifth Chambers of the Civil and Commercial Court of First Instance of the National District dismissed the case. CDEEE appealed the dismissal to the Second Room of the Court of Appeal offor the National District. A hearingCDEEE alleges in both lawsuits that Itabo spent more than was held on May 12, 2005,necessary to rehabilitate two generation units of an Itabo power plant, and, in the Fifth Chamber lawsuit, that those funds were paid to affiliates and subsidiaries of AES Gener and Coastal


Itabo, requested thatLtd. (“Coastal”) without the Courtrequired approval of AppealItabo’s board of administration. AES Gener and Coastal were shareholders of Itabo during the rehabilitation, but Coastal later sold its interest in Itabo to an indirect subsidiary of the National District declare that it lacked jurisdictionCompany. In the First Chamber lawsuit, CDEEE seeks an accounting of Itabo’s transactions relating to decide the matter,rehabilitation. In November 2004, the First Chamber dismissed the case for lack of legal basis. On appeal, in light of the arbitration clause set forth in the contracts executed between Itabo and CDEEE during the Capitalization Process. The Court of Appeal of the National District denied Itabo’s request and ordered that the claims be heard on the merits, but reserved judgment on Itabo’s arguments that the matter should be resolved in an arbitration proceeding. On May 25, 2005, Itabo appealed before the Court of Appeals of Santo Domingo and requested a stay of the May 12, 2005 decision. On October 14, 2005 the Court of Appeals of Santo Domingo upheldruled in Itabo’s request of jurisdictional incompetence, accepting Itabo’s argumentfavor, reasoning that the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) had exclusiveit lacked jurisdiction over the matter.dispute because the parties’ contracts mandated arbitration. The Supreme Court of Justice is considering CDEEE’s appeal of the Court of Appeals’ decision. In the other Itabo


Fifth Chamber lawsuit, which also names Itabo’s former president as a defendant, CDEEE requestedseeks $15 million in damages and the seizure of Itabo’s assets. In October 2005, the Fifth Chamber held that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Second Roomdispute given the arbitration provisions in the parties’ contracts. The First Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the National District order Itabo to deliver its accounting books and records for the period fromratified that decision in September 1999 to July 2004 to CDEEE. At a hearing on March 30, 2005, Itabo argued that the Court of Appeal of the National District did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the case should be decided in an arbitration proceeding. On October 6, 2005 the Court of Appeal of the National District upheld Itabo’s petition of jurisdictional incompetence and declared that the lawsuit should be decided in an arbitral proceeding. CDEEE filed an appeal of the decision with the First Room of the Court of Appeal of the National District, which is pending. In the Ede Este lawsuit, CDEEE requests an accounting of all of Ede Este’s commercial and financial operations with affiliate companies since August 5, 1999. This lawsuit was dismissed by the First Instance Tribunal of the National District for lack of jurisdiction. CDEEE then filed an identical lawsuit in the First Instance Tribunal of the Santo Domingo Province, which is pending.2006. In a related proceeding, onin May 26, 2005, Itabo filed a lawsuit in the United StatesU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to compel CDEEE to arbitrate its claims against Itabo.claims. The petition was denied onin July 18, 2005, and Itabo appealed2005. Itabo’s appeal of that decision onto the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit has been stayed since September 6, 2005. The appeal is pending. In another related proceeding, on2006. Also, in February 9, 2005, Itabo initiated arbitration against CDEEE and the Fondo Patrimonial para el Desarrollode las Empresas Reformadas (“FONPER”) in the Arbitral CourtInternational Chamber of the ICCCommerce (“ICC”) seeking, among other relief, to enforce the arbitration/dispute resolutionarbitration provisions in the contracts among the parties. FONPER submitted an answer and a counterclaim while CDEEE submitted only an answer. Onparties’ contracts. In March 28, 2006, Itabo and FONPER executed an agreement resolving all ofsettled their respective claims inclaims. In September 2006, the arbitration. The settlement agreement will be submittedICC determined that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the ICC. The arbitration continues as betweento Itabo and CDEEE. Itabo believes it has meritorious claims and defenses to the allegations asserted against it and will defend itselfassert them vigorously against those allegations.

On February 18, 2004, AES Gener S.A. (“Gener SA”), a subsidiary of the Company, filed a lawsuit against Coastal Itabo, Ltd. (“Coastal”), Gener SA’s co-venturer in Itabo, a Dominican Republic power generation company, in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit sought to enjoin the efforts initiated by Coastal to hire an alleged “independent expert,” purportedly pursuant to the Shareholders Agreement between the parties, to perform a valuation of Gener SA’s aggregate interests in Itabo. Coastal asserted that Gener SA had committed a material breach under the parties’ Shareholders Agreement, and therefore, Gener SA was required if requested by Coastal to sell its aggregate interests in Itabo to Coastal at a price equal to 75% of the independent expert’s valuation. Coastal claimed a breach occurred based on alleged violations by Gener SA of purported antitrust laws of the Dominican Republic and breaches of fiduciary duty. Gener SA disputed that any default had occurred. On March 11, 2004, upon motion by Gener SA, the court enjoined disclosure of the valuation performed by the “expert” and ordered the parties to arbitration. On March 11, 2004, Gener SA commenced arbitration proceedings seeking, among other things, a declarationthese proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it had not breached the Shareholders Agreement. Coastal then filed a counterclaim alleging that Gener SA had breached the Shareholders Agreement. On January 4, 2006, Coastal filed a “Withdrawal of Counterclaim” with a “Withdrawal of Notice of Defaults” withdrawing with prejudicewill be successful in its allegations that Gener SA had violated the Shareholders Agreement. On January 25, 2006, the arbitration tribunal heard arguments on the form of the final award and whether to award fees and costs to Gener SA. The arbitration tribunal’s decision on those matters is pending.efforts.

Pursuant to the pesification established by the Public Emergency Law and related decrees in Argentina, since the beginning of 2002, the Company’s subsidiary TermoAndes has converted its obligations under its gas supply and gas transportation contracts into pesos. In accordance with the Argentine regulations, payments were made in Argentine pesos at a 1:1 exchange rate. Certain gas suppliers (Tecpetrol, Mobil and Compañía General de Combustibles S.A.), which represented 50% of the gas supply contract, have objected to the payment in pesos. On January 30, 2004, such gas suppliers filed for arbitration with the ICC requesting the re-dollarization of the gas price. TermoAndes replied on March 10, 2004 with a counter-lawsuit related to: (i) the default of suppliers regarding the most favored


nation clause; (ii) the unilateral modification of the point of gas injection by the suppliers; (iii) the obligations to supply the contracted quantities; and (iv) the ability of TermoAndes to resell the gas not consumed. On January 26, 2006, the parties reached agreement resolving all reciprocal claims, including those submitted for arbitration. The settlement agreement was submitted to the arbitration court for it to issue a decision based on the agreed settlement. The arbitration court has yet to issue a decision.

On or about October 27, 2004, Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) filed a lawsuit against AES Red Oak LLC (“Red Oak”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaint purports to allege claims for breach of contract, fraud, interference with contractual rights and equitable relief concerning alleged issues relatedrelating to the construction and/or performance of the Red Oak project.project, an 800 MW combined cycle power plant in Sayreville, New Jersey. The complaint seeks the return from Red Oak of approximately $30 million that was drawn by Red Oak under a letter of credit that was posted by Raytheon related tofor the construction and/or performance of the Red Oak project. Raytheon also seeks $110 million in purported additional expenses allegedly incurred by Raytheon in connection with the guaranty and construction agreements entered with Red Oak. In December 2004, Red Oak answered the complaint and filed breach of contract and fraud counterclaims against Raytheon. In January 2005, Raytheon moved for dismissal of Red Oak’s counterclaims. In March 2005, the motion to dismiss was withdrawn and a partial motion for summary judgment was filed by Raytheon seeking return of approximately $16 million of the letter of credit draw.The Court subsequently ordered Red Oak submitted its opposition to pay Raytheon approximately $16.3 million plus interest, which sum allegedly represented the partial motion for summary judgment in April 2005. Meanwhile, Raytheon re-filed its motion to dismiss the fraud allegations in the counterclaim. In late April 2005, Red Oak filed its response opposing the renewed motion to dismiss. In December 2005, the Court granted a dismissal of Red Oak’s fraud claim. The Court also ordered the return of approximately $16 millionamount of the letter of credit draw that had yet to be utilized for the performance/construction issues. At the Court’s suggestion, the parties are negotiating whether to deposit the $16 million into a new letter of credit by Raytheon.The Court also dismissed Red Oak’s fraud claims, which decision was upheld on appeal. The parties are conducting discovery. The discovery cut-off is December 15, 2006.have stipulated that Red Oak may assert claims for performance/construction issues if it has incurred costs on such claims. In May 2005, Raytheon also filed a related action against Red Oak in the Superior Court of Middlesex County, New Jersey, on May 27, 2005, seeking to foreclose on a construction lien filed againstin the amount of approximately $31 million on property allegedly owned by Red Oak, in the amount of $31 million.Oak. Red Oak was served with the Complaint in September of 2005, and filed its answer affirmative defenses, and counterclaim in October of 2005. Raytheon has stated that it wishes to stay the New Jersey action pending the outcome of the New York action. Red Oak has not decided whether it wishes to oppose the lien or consent to a stay. Red Oak believes it has meritorious claims and defenses to the claims asserted against it and expects to defend itselfwill assert them vigorously in the lawsuits.

In 2004, the Hungarian environmental authority issued a notice of environmental penalty to Borsod, AES’ Hungarian generation facility, for approximately $733,000 for emissions violations. Borsod believesthese proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that the environmental authority’s penalty calculation does not properly reflect Borsod’s environmental investments, and has therefore appealed the calculation to the Supreme Court of Hungary. If Borsod’s appeal is successful, the penaltyit will be reduced to approximately $175,000. A decision is expectedsuccessful in the second quarter of 2006. its efforts.

In addition, on October 24, 2005, Borsod paid an environmental penalty in local currency equivalent to approximately $191,000 for operations during 2004. Since January 1, 2005, Borsod has been operating with reduced emissions as required by regulation 14/2001, so either no penalty, or at least a reduced penalty, is expected for 2005 operations.

On January 26, 2005, the City of Redondo Beach (“City”), of California sentissued an assessment against Williams Power Co., Inc., (“Williams”) and AES Redondo Beach, LLC (“AES Redondo”), an indirect subsidiary of the Company, a notice of assessment for approximately $71.7 million in allegedly overdue utility users’ tax (“UUT”) for the period of May 1998 through September 2004, taxing, interest, and penalties relating to the natural gas used at AES Redondo’s power plant from May 1998 through September 2004 to generate electricity during that period. The original assessment included alleged amounts owing of $32.8 million for gas usage and $38.9 million in interest and penalties. Theelectricity. In September 2005, the City lowered the total assessment to $56.7 million on July 13, 2005, based on an admitted calculation error. An administrative hearing before the Tax Administrator was held on July 18-21, 2005, to hear Williams’ and AES Redondo’s respective objections to the assessment. On


September 23, 2005, the Tax Administrator issued a decision holding AES Redondo and Williams jointly and severally liable for approximately $56.7 million over $20 million of which isin UUT, interest, and penalties (“September 23 Decision”). Onpenalties. In October 7, 2005, AES Redondo and Williams filed an appeal of that decisionrespective appeals with the City Manager, who appointed a Hearing Officer to decide the appeal. In December 2006, the Hearing Officer overturned the City’s assessment against AES Redondo (but not Williams). In December 2006, Williams filed a


petition for writ of Redondo Beach. Under its Ordinance,mandate with Los Angeles Superior Court concerning the Hearing Officer’s decision. Williams later prepaid $56.7 million to the City in order to continue litigating its petition, pursuant to a court order, and filed an amended petition. In March 2007, the City filed a petition for writ of Redondo Beach was requiredmandate with the Superior Court concerning the Hearing Officer’s decision as to hold the appeal hearing within 45 days of the filing of the appeal. The City’s hearing officer, however, has issued a tentative schedule stating that any hearing will be completed by April 21, 2006, and that the “appeal determination” will be issued by May 19, 2006.AES Redondo. In addition, in July 2005, AES Redondo filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking a refund of UUT that was paid fromsince February 2005, through final judgment of that case, and an order that the City cannot charge AES Redondo UUT going forward. AtWilliams later filed a February 6, 2006 status conference,similar complaint that was related to AES Redondo’s lawsuit. After authorizing limited discovery on disputed jurisdictional and other issues, including whether AES Redondo and Williams must prepay to the Los Angeles SuperiorCity any allegedly owed UUT prior to judicially challenging the merits of the UUT, the Court stayed AES Redondo’s July 2005 lawsuit until May 22, 2006, after ordering the City and AES Redondo to agree on dates by which the administrative appeal of the September 23 Decision should be finalized. On May 22, 2006, the Court will hold a status conference to determine whether the Court should proceed with AES Redondo’s July 2005 lawsuit.case in December 2006. Furthermore, onsince December 13, 2005, the Tax Administrator senthas periodically issued UUT assessments against AES Redondo and Williams two itemized bills for allegedly overdue UUT on the gas used at the facility. The first bill was for $1,274,753.49 inpower plant since October 2004 ( “New UUT interest, and penalties on the gas used at the facility from October 1, 2004, through February 1, 2005. The second bill was for $1,757,242.12 in UUT, interest, and penalties on the gas used at the facility from February 2, 2005, through September 30, 2005. Subsequently, on January 21, 2006, the Tax Administrator sentAssessments”). AES Redondo and Williams another itemized bill that assessed $269,592.37 in allegedly overdue UUT, interest, and penalties on gas used at the facility from October 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. On December 30, 2005, AES Redondo filed objections with the Tax Administratorhas objected to the City’s December 13, 2005, January 21, 2006,those and any future UUT assessments. A hearing has not been scheduled on those objections, but theThe Tax Administrator has deniedstated that AES Redondo’s objections to the December 13, 2005 UUT assessments based on the findingsare moot in light of his September 23 Decision, which, as noted above, is on appeal. If there is2005 decision. The Tax Administrator has not scheduled a hearing on the December 13, 2005, and January 21, 2006,New UUT assessments, the Tax Administratorbut has indicated that if there is one he will only address the amount of those assessments, but not the merits of them. The CompanyAES Redondo believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses, toand it will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In February 2006, the allegations asserted against itlocal Kazakhstan tax commission imposed an environmental fine on Maikuben West mine, for alleged unauthorized disposal of overburden in the mine during 2003 and will defend itself vigorously against2004. On November 23, 2006, Maikuben West paid a fine of approximately $2.8 million in connection with this matter.

In March 2006, the allegations.

The Government of the Dominican Republic (“Dominican Republic”) and its attorneys have stated in press reports thatSecretariat of State of the Environment and Natural Resources of the Dominican Republic intends to file lawsuits(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in United States and Dominican courtsthe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against The AES Corporation, (the “Company”AES Aggregate Services, Ltd., AES Atlantis, Inc., and AES Puerto Rico, LP (collectively, “AES Defendants”), and unrelated parties, Silver Spot Enterprises and Roger Charles Fina. In June 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a substantially similar amended complaint against the defendants, alleging that the defendants improperly disposed of “coal ash waste” in the Dominican Republic, and that the alleged waste was generated at AES Puerto Rico’s power plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico. Based on these allegations, the amended complaint asserts seven claims against the defendants: violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 68, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”); conspiracy to violate section 1962(c) of the RICO Act; civil conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) asserting variousand other unspecified laws concerning bribery and waste disposal; aiding and abetting the violation of the FCPA and other unspecified laws concerning bribery and waste disposal; violation of unspecified nuisance law; violation of unspecified product liability law; and violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1350, the Alien Tort Statute (which the Plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice). While the Plaintiffs did not quantify their alleged damages in their amended complaint, in their discovery responses they claimed to be seeking at least $28 million in alleged compensatory damages and $196 million in alleged punitive damages from the defendants. In February 2007 the Plaintiffs and the AES Defendants settled their dispute. The Court has entered a joint stipulation dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims purportedly relatingagainst the AES Defendants with prejudice.

AES Eastern Energy voluntarily disclosed to the alleged disposalNew York State Department of manufactured aggregateEnvironmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on November 27, 2002 that nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) exceedances appear to have occurred on October 30 and 31, and November 1 8 and 10 of 2002. The exceedances were discovered through an audit by plant personnel of the Plant’s NOx Reasonably Available Control Technology (“RACT”) tracking system. Immediately upon the discovery of the exceedances, the selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) at the Somerset plant was activated to reduce NOx emissions. AES Eastern Energy learned of a notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the


NYSDEC for the NOx RACT exceedances through a review of the November 2004 release of the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History (“ECHO”) database. However, AES Eastern Energy has not yet seen the NOV from the NYSDEC. AES Eastern Energy is currently negotiating with NYSDEC concerning this matter. On November 13, 2006 AES Eastern Energy paid a fine of $263,200 and entered into a consent decree with NYSDEC, addressing these matters.

In June 2006, AES Ekibastuz was found to have breached a local tax law by failing to obtain a license for use of local water for the period of January 1, 2005 through October 3, 2005, in a timely manner. As a result, an additional permit fee was imposed, brining the total permit fee to approximately $135,000. The company has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

In October 2006, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court decided that it would review a lawsuit filed in 2000 by certain Venezuelan citizens alleging that the Company’s acquisition of a controlling stake in C.A. La Electricidad de Caracas in 2000 was void because the acquisition had not been approved by the Venezuelan National Assembly. AES has been notified of the Supreme Court’s decision to review the lawsuit. AES believes that it complied with all existing laws with respect to the acquisition and that there are meritorious defenses to the allegations in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurance that it will prevail in this lawsuit.

In October 2006, CDEEE began making public statements that it intends to seek to compel the renegotiation and/or rescission of long-term power purchase agreements with certain power-generation companies in the Dominican Republic. The manufactured aggregate allegedly was manufacturedAlthough the details concerning CDEEE’s statements are unclear and no formal government action has been taken, AES owns certain interests in three power-generation companies in the country (AES Andres, Itabo, and Dominican Power Partners) that could be adversely impacted by any actions taken by or at a Puerto Rico facility owned by a subsidiarythe direction of CDEEE.

In February 2007, the Competition Committee of the CompanyMinistry of Industry and locatedTrading of the Republic of Kazakhstan initiated administrative proceedings against two hydro plants under AES concession, Ust-Kamenogorsk HPP and Shulbinsk HPP (collectively, “Hydros”), for allegedly using Nurenergoservice LLP to increase power prices for customers in Guayama, Puerto Rico.alleged violation of Kazakhstan’s antimonopoly laws. The Dominican RepublicCompetition Committee subsequently issued orders directing the Hydros to pay approximately 4.3 billion KZT (US$35 million) in damages and its attorneysfines. In April 2007 the Hydros appealed those orders to the local courts. In addition, Nurenergoservice has been informed that it will be ordered by the Competition Committee to pay approximately 2 billion KZT (US$ 15 million) for alleged antimonopoly violations. In related proceedings, in March 2007 the local financial police initiated criminal proceedings against the General Director and the Finance Director of the Hydros. Those proceedings were later terminated pursuant to a settlement. The Hydros and Nurenergoservice believe they have statedmeritorious defenses and will assert them vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that the Dominican Republicthey will seek $80 millionbe successful in purported damages. The Company has not been served with the referenced lawsuit regarding the manufactured aggregate.their efforts.

ITEM 44.                 SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2005.2006.

6272




PART II

ITEM 5.                 MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

Recent Sales ofOf Unregistered Securities

None.

Market Information

Our common stock is currently traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “AES.”  The closing price of our common stock as reported by NYSE on May15, 2007, was $22.90, per share. The Company did not repurchase any of its common stock in 2006 or 2005. The following tables set forth the high and low sale prices, as well as performance trends, for our common stock as reported by the NYSE for the periods indicated.

Price Range of Common Stock

2005

 

 

 

High

 

Low

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

Price Range of Common Stock

 

 

 

High

 

Low

 

High

 

Low

 

First Quarter

First Quarter

 

$

17.65

 

$

12.84

 

First Quarter

 

$

17.71

 

$

16.20

 

$

17.65

 

$

12.84

 

Second Quarter

Second Quarter

 

17.36

 

13.72

 

Second Quarter

 

18.76

 

16.40

 

17.36

 

13.72

 

Third Quarter

Third Quarter

 

16.67

 

14.67

 

Third Quarter

 

21.24

 

18.25

 

16.67

 

14.67

 

Fourth Quarter

Fourth Quarter

 

17.10

 

14.94

 

Fourth Quarter

 

23.72

 

20.21

 

17.10

 

14.94

 

 

2004

 

 

 

High

 

Low

 

First Quarter

 

$

10.71

 

$

8.02

 

Second Quarter

 

10.15

 

7.69

 

Third Quarter

 

10.65

 

9.20

 

Fourth Quarter

 

13.67

 

10.15

 


Performance Graph

THE AES CORPORATION
PEER GROUP INDEX/STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE

COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURNS
ASSUMES INITIAL INVESTMENT OF $100

Source: Bloomberg

COMPARISON OF 3 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURNS
ASSUMES INITIAL INVESTMENT OF $100

Source: Bloomberg


We have selected the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 Utilities Index as our peer group index. The S&P 500 Utilities Index is a published sector index comprising the 32 electric and gas utilities included in the S&P 500.

The 5 year total return chart assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2001 in AES Common Stock, the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Utilities Index. The 3 year total return chart assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2003 in the same security and indices. The information included under the heading “Performance Graph” shall not be considered “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Holders

As of February 28, 2006,May 15, 2007, there were approximately 7,6506,857 record holders of our common stock, par value $0.01 per share.

Dividends

We do not currently pay dividends on our common stock. We intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to finance the future development and operation of our business. Accordingly, we do not anticipate paying any dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

Under the terms of our Senior Secured Credit Facilities, which we entered into with a commercial bank syndicate, we are not allowed to pay cash dividends. In addition, under the terms of a guaranty we provided to the utility customer in connection with the AES Thames project, we are precluded from paying cash dividends on our common stock if we do not meet certain net worth and liquidity tests. The terms of the indentures governing our outstanding Senior Subordinated Notes and Second Priority Senior Secured Notes also restrict our ability to pay dividends.

Our project subsidiaries’ ability to declare and pay cash dividends to us is subject to certain limitations contained in the project loans, governmental provisions and other agreements that our project subsidiaries are subject to.

See Item 12 (d) of this Form 10-K for information regarding Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans.

63




ITEM 6.                 SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table sets forth our selected financial data set forth inas of the dates and for the periods indicated. You should read this item 6 has been restated to correct errors that were contained in our consolidated financial statementsdata together with Item 7.—“Management’s Discussion and other financial information included in our 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, filed with the U.S. SecuritiesAnalysis of Financial Condition and Exchange Commission on January 19, 2006. The following selected financial data should be read in conjunction withResults of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto included in Part II, Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected financial data for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2006 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements. The information presented in the following tables has been adjusted to reflect the restatement of our financial results which is more fully described in Note 1 of the consolidated financial statements.statements of the Company included in this Form 10-K. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of our future results.

Our acquisitions,Acquisitions, disposals, reclassifications and changes in accounting principles affect the comparability of information included in the tables below. Please refer to the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for further explanation of the effect of such activities. Please also refer to Item 1A and Note 22 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for certain risks and uncertainties that may cause the data reflected herein not to be indicative of our future financial condition or results of operations.

75




SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

Statement of Operations Data

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(3)

 

(Restated)(3)

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

2001

 

 

(in millions, except per share amounts)

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

Statement of Operations Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenues

 

$

11,086

 

 

$

9,463

 

 

 

$

8,413

 

 

$

7,377

 

$

6,299

 

 

$

12,299

 

 

$

11,021

 

 

 

$

9,392

 

 

 

$

8,352

 

 

 

$

7,322

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

632

 

 

264

 

 

 

294

 

 

(2,064

)

323

 

 

286

 

 

574

 

 

 

268

 

 

 

289

 

 

 

(1,922

)

 

Discontinued operations, net of tax

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

(787

)

 

(1,561

)

(130

)

 

(46

)

 

34

 

 

 

32

 

 

 

(787

)

 

 

(1,744

)

 

Extraordinary item, net of tax

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax

 

(2

)

 

 

 

 

41

 

 

(376

)

 

 

 

 

(3

)

 

 

 

 

 

41

 

 

 

(376

)

 

Net income (loss)

 

$

630

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

(452

)

 

$

(4,001

)

$

193

 

Net income available to common stockholders

 

$

261

 

 

$

605

 

 

 

$

300

 

 

 

$

(457

)

 

 

$

(4,042

)

 

Basic income (loss) earnings per share:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

$

0.96

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

$

(3.83

)

$

0.61

 

 

$

0.44

 

 

$

0.89

 

 

 

$

0.42

 

 

 

$

0.48

 

 

 

$

(3.57

)

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

 

0.06

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

(2.89

)

(0.25

)

 

(0.07

)

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

 

(3.23

)

 

Extraordinary item, net of tax

 

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

(0.70

)

 

 

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

 

(0.70

)

 

Basic income (loss) earnings per share

 

$

0.96

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

 

$

(0.76

)

 

$

(7.42

)

$

0.36

 

 

$

0.40

 

 

$

0.93

 

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

 

$

(0.77

)

 

 

$

(7.50

)

 

Diluted income (loss) earnings per share:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

$

0.95

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

$

(3.83

)

$

0.60

 

 

$

0.43

 

 

$

0.87

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.48

 

 

 

$

(3.57

)

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

(2.89

)

(0.24

)

 

(0.07

)

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

 

(3.23

)

 

Extraordinary item, net of tax

 

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

(0.70

)

 

 

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

 

(0.70

)

 

Diluted income (loss) earnings per share

 

$

0.95

 

 

$

0.46

 

 

 

$

(0.76

)

 

$

(7.42

)

$

0.36

 

 

$

0.39

 

 

$

0.91

 

 

 

$

0.46

 

 

 

$

(0.77

)

 

 

$

(7.50

)

 

 

 

December 31,

 

Balance Sheet Data:

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(3)

 

(Restated)(3)

 

(Restated)(3)

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

2001

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Balance Sheet Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total assets

 

$

29,432

 

 

$

28,923

 

 

 

$

29,137

 

 

$

34,550

 

$

36,636

 

 

$

31,163

 

 

$

28,960

 

 

 

$

28,388

 

 

 

$

29,130

 

 

 

$

34,516

 

 

Non-recourse debt (long-term)

 

$

11,226

 

 

$

11,817

 

 

 

$

10,930

 

 

$

10,044

 

$

10,787

 

 

$

10,102

 

 

$

10,638

 

 

 

$

11,155

 

 

 

$

10,538

 

 

 

$

5,610

 

 

Non-recourse debt (long-term)—Discontinued operations

 

$

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

56

 

 

$

4,126

 

$

4,037

 

Non-recourse debt (long-term)-Discontinued operations

 

$

57

 

 

$

133

 

 

 

$

157

 

 

 

$

219

 

 

 

$

4,275

 

 

Recourse debt (long-term)

 

$

4,682

 

 

$

5,010

 

 

 

$

5,862

 

 

$

6,755

 

$

5,891

 

 

$

4,790

 

 

$

4,682

 

 

 

$

5,010

 

 

 

$

5,862

 

 

 

$

6,755

 

 

Stockholders’ equity (deficit)

 

$

1,649

 

 

$

956

 

 

 

$

(102

)

 

$

(855

)

$

5,154

 

 

$

3,036

 

 

$

1,626

 

 

 

$

953

 

 

 

$

(121

)

 

 

$

(823

)(2)

 


(1)             See Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information related to restated Consolidated Financial Statements.

(2)A $12$28 million reduction to stockholders’Stockholder’s equity was recognized as of January 1, 20032002 as the cumulative effect of the correction of errors for all periods precedingpreceeding January 1, 2003. This2002. The correction was not material to the financial data presented herein as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2002 - December 31, 2006.

(3)The impact of the restatement adjustments on stockholders’ equity was $(3), $(19) and 2001.$32 million as of December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The impact of the restatement adjustments to net income was an increase to net losses of $5 million and $41 million for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

64




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

The accompanying management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations set forth in this Item 7 is restated to reflect the correction of errors that were contained in ourthe Company’s consolidated financial statements and other financial information for the yearyears ended December 31, 20042002 through 2005 as discussed below and in Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, the prior period financial statements have been restated to reflect the change in the Company’s segments as discussed below and in Note 22 of the Consolidated Financial Statements. The following management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our restated consolidated financial statements and the related notes.


Restatement Of Consolidated Financial StatementsRESTATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SubsequentBackground

The Company has previously identified certain material weaknesses related to filing its system of internal control over financial reporting. These material weaknesses, as described in the Company’s previously filed Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 included the following general areas:

·       Aggregation of control deficiencies at our Cameroonian subsidiary;

·       Lack of U.S. GAAP expertise in Brazilian businesses;

·       Treatment of intercompany loans denominated in other than the functional currency;

·       Derivative accounting; and

·       Income taxes.

In part, the continuing remediation of these material weaknesses resulted in the identification of certain material financial statement errors. The Company has restated annual reportits financial statements for years ended prior to December 31, 2005 on Form 10-K/A with the Securities Exchange Commission onMarch 30, 2005, January 19, 2006 and April 4, 2006 largely as a result of material weaknesses. As part of the Company’s plan to eliminate these material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, the Company discoveredhas embarked on a program, over a several year period, to improve the quality of its previously issued restated consolidatedpeople, processes and financial statementssystems. This has included a broad restructuring of the global finance organization to operate on a more centralized basis and the recruitment of additional accounting, financial reporting, income tax, internal control and internal audit staff around the world.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, in conjunction with these improvements, continued remediation of some of our material weaknesses and overall strengthening of controls across our businesses, the Company identified certain additional errors in accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities, minority interest expense and income taxes. The errors in accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities resulted in differences in previously issued consolidated interim financial statements for certain quarterly periods in 2004 sufficient to require restatement of prior period interim results. The errors in accounting for income taxes and minority interest expensewhich required the restatement of previously issued consolidated annualfinancial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005; and for the previously issued interim periods ending March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2005 and 2006.

The Company’s remediation efforts for certain material weaknesses reported as of December 31, 2005, as well as improvements to controls across the Company, resulted in the identification of errors included in the current restatement. In addition, a number of immaterial errors were identified as a result of the continued strengthening of the global finance organization. The Company believes that the increase in technical tax and accounting expertise, increased staffing levels at certain of our businesses and at our corporate office, and a focused effort on increasing the number of financial audit activities have contributed to the overall improvement of the accuracy of our financial statements. It also resulted in the identification of material weaknesses in areas not previously reported, although not all weaknesses contributed to the need to restate the consolidated financial statements. For further discussion of our material weaknesses, see Item 9A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The restatement adjustments resulted in a decrease to previously reported income from continuing operations and net income of $24 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an increase of $2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. It also resulted in a decrease to previously reported income from continuing operations and net income of $3 million for the three months ending March 31, 2006, an increase to net income of $10 million for the six months ending June 30, 2006 and an increase to net income of $30 million for the nine months ending September 30, 2006. These interim period adjustments for the first three quarters of 2006 were largely the result of reversing errors previously corrected in these periods, which were not previously considered material either to the period in which they were corrected or the prior period to which they actually arose. Additionally, the cumulative adjustment for all periods prior to 2004 resulted in an increase to retained deficit of $50 million.


The following table quantifies the net impact of the restatement corrections by key income statement line items for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and includes the resulting impact on diluted earnings per share from continuing operations. The primary line items affected include revenue, cost of sales, gain (loss) on foreign currency transactions, income tax expense and the related impacts on minority interest expense.

 

 

Year Ended
December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions, except
per share amounts)

 

Income from continuing operations as previously reported

 

$

598

 

$

266

 

Changes in income from continuing operations from restatement due to:

 

 

 

 

 

Increase in revenue

 

25

 

1

 

Decrease in cost of sales

 

5

 

18

 

(Increase) decrease in general and administrative expense

 

(4

)

1

 

Increase in other income

 

11

 

1

 

(Increase) in goodwill and asset impairment expense

 

(6

)

(1

)

(Increase) decrease in foreign currency transaction losses

 

(13

)

27

 

Decrease in equity earnings of affiliates

 

(6

)

(7

)

(Increase) in income tax expense

 

(27

)

(24

)

(Increase) in minority interest and other(1)

 

(9

)

(14

)

(Decrease) increase in income from continuing operations

 

(24

)

2

 

Income from continuing operations as restated

 

$

574

 

$

268

 

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations as previously reported

 

$

0.90

 

$

0.41

 

Changes due to restatement effects

 

(0.03)

 

 

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations as restated

 

$

0.87

 

$

0.41

 

Diluted shares outstanding

 

664.6

 

648.1

 


(1)          Minority interest and other includes $12 million and $13 million of minority interest expense for the periods ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively, related to the impact of the restatement adjustments at entities with minority interests.

The Company has been cooperating with an informal inquiry by the SEC Staff concerning the Company’s restatements and related matters, and has been providing information and documents to the SEC Staff on a voluntary basis. Because the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this inquiry and the SEC Staff may disagree with the manner in which the Company has accounted for and reported the financial impact of the adjustments to previously filed financial statements, there may be a risk that the inquiry by the SEC could lead to circumstances in which the Company may have to further restate previously filed financial statements, amend prior filings or take other actions not currently contemplated.

The restatement adjustments include several key categories as described below:

Brazil Adjustments

Prior year errors related to certain subsidiaries in Brazil include the following:

·       decrease of the U.S. GAAP fixed asset basis and related depreciation at Eletropaulo of $21 million in 2005 and $16 million in 2004 (the impact net of tax and minority interest is $4 million in 2005 and $4 million in 2004); and

·       other errors identified through account reconciliation or review procedures.


The cumulative impact on net income was an increase of $6 million and $3 million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

EDC

Prior year errors related to the Company’s Venezuelan subsidiary, EDC, include the following:

·       $22 million revenue increase predominantly related to an error in updating the current tariff rates in the unbilled revenue calculation for 2005,

·       $10 million increase in foreign currency transaction expense posted incorrectly to the balance sheet in 2005, and

·       other errors identified through account reconciliation or review procedures.

The cumulative impact of all EDC adjustments on net income was an increase of $2 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004.

Capitalization of Certain Costs

Certain errors were discovered with fixed asset balances at several of the Company’s facilities related to capitalization of development costs, overhead and capitalized interest. The cumulative impact on net income for capitalization errors was a decrease of $4 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and a decrease of $2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Derivatives

Adjustments were identified resulting from the detailed review of certain prior year contracts and include the following:

·       the evaluation of hedge effectiveness; and

·       the identification and evaluation of derivatives.

The most significant adjustment involved a power sales agreement signed in 2002 between the Company’s generation facility in Cartagena, Spain, an unconsolidated subsidiary accounted for using the equity method of accounting, and its power offtaker. The power sales agreement had a pricing component that was tied to the U.S. dollar, although the entity’s own functional currency was the Euro and that of the offtaker was the Euro. In addition, a maintenance service agreement related to the Cartagena facility included a pricing mechanism that was tied to changes in the U.S. dollar, when the entity’s functional currency was the Euro and the service provider’s functional currency was the Yen.

Under the guidance of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” these contracts contained embedded derivatives that are required to be bifurcated from the contract and recorded at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in the results of operations. The net result of these adjustments was a decrease of $3 million and an increase of $4 million in equity in earnings of affiliates for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The cumulative impact of all derivative adjustments on net income was a decrease of $4 million in 2005 and an increase of $5 million in 2004.

Income Tax Adjustments

Income tax adjustments relate primarily to the following:

·       A $20 million adjustment to correct income tax expense in the fourth quarter of 2005 as a result of an incorrect 2004 tax return to accrual adjustment, previously disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for September 30, 2006; and


·       A $21 million adjustment to record income tax benefit in 2004 as a result of a change in local income tax reporting for leases in Qatar, offset by adjustments to correct income tax expense for certain state deferred tax assets and other miscellaneous items.

The net impact of individual income tax adjustments resulted in an increase to income tax expense of approximately $18 million in 2005 and $7 million in 2004. The cumulative impact on income tax expense as a result of all restatement adjustments was an increase of approximately $27 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an increase of approximately $24 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Other Adjustments

As a result of evaluatingwork performed in the course of our year end closing process, certain other adjustments were identified which decreased net income by $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and increased net income by $1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Balance Sheet Adjustments

Adjustments at certain businesses in Brazil

The Company’s Brazilian business, Sul, records customer receipts used to provide line extensions as an offset against property, plant and equipment. However, the regulatory body of Brazil never issued any guidance with respect to the treatment of these customer receipts. As such, we believe that a more appropriate classification of these customer receipts would have been as a regulatory liability given that the actual treatment as an offset against property, plant and equipment was never approved by the regulatory body of Brazil. Additionally, the regulatory liability treatment provides for the possibility of a future obligation back to the customers, which was confirmed by a recent regulatory ruling. The increase to property, plant and equipment and increase to long-term regulatory liabilities was $93 million and $62 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

Cartagena Deconsolidation

Upon the Company’s adoption of Financial Interpretation No.46, Variable Interest Entities (“FIN No. 46R”), as of January 1, 2004, the Company incorrectly continued to consolidate our business in Cartagena, Spain. An adjustment was made to deconsolidate the Cartagena balance sheet and statement of operations and to reflect AES’ share of the results of its operations using the equity method of accounting. This resulted in a decrease to investments in affiliates of $55 and $39 million; a decrease in net property, plant and equipment of $570 and $387 million; and a decrease in non-recource debt of $579 and $497 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

Restricted Cash

Certain balance sheet reclassifications were recorded at December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 that were the result of errors in the presentation of restricted cash. These reclasses resulted in a reduction in cash and cash equivalents and an increase in restricted cash by $63 million and $97 million, in 2005 and 2004, respectively

Share-based Compensation

The Company recently concluded an internal review of accounting for share-based compensation (the “LTC Review”), which originally was disclosed in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on February 26, 2007. As a result of the LTC Review, the Company identified certain errors in its previous accounting for share-based compensation. These errors required adjustments to the Company’s previous accounting for these awards under the guidance of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (“APB No. 25”), Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (“FAS No. 123”) and FASB Statement No. 123R (revised 2004),


Share-Based Payment (“FAS No. 123R”). As described below, the Company is recording adjustments to its prior financial statements resulting in additional cumulative pre-tax compensation expense for the years 2000-2005 of $36 million ($26 million net of taxes). None of these adjustments, individually or in the aggregate, is quantitatively material to any period presented.

In addition, the Company reducedhas identified accounting for share-based compensation as a material weakness and has prepared a remediation plan to strengthen further its granting and accounting practices to avoid similar errors in the future. See Item 9A—Disclosure Controls and Procedures of this Form 10-K for further explanation of the material weakness and the Company’s remediation plans.

Background of the LTC Review

Beginning in mid-2006 the Company conducted limited assessments of its share-based compensation practices. Based on those assessments, it did not appear likely that the potential accounting adjustments relating to share-based compensation issues identified as of that time would be material to the Company’s prior period financial statements. However, information subsequently developed by the Company’s Internal Audit group indicated that there had been control deficiencies and inadequate oversight related to historical granting practices and accounting for share-based compensation.

Following consideration of this information, the Company determined that a more comprehensive review of prior period awards was warranted. Accordingly, in early February 2007, the Company requested that an outside consulting firm assist with the collection and processing of data relating to the Company’s share-based compensation awards. The outside consulting firm also provided a team of forensic accountants to assist the Company with its: (i) evaluation of relevant Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and FASB guidance relating to share-based compensation; (ii) implementation of procedures for review of electronic data, including e-mails; and (iii) analysis of the information used to determine measurement dates, strike prices and valuations required to reach the resulting accounting adjustments. The Company also asked an outside law firm to assist the Company with the LTC Review. This law firm had already been assisting the Company in responding to requests for documents and information from the SEC Staff principally relating to the Company’s restatements for the years 2002-2005. As disclosed in a Form 8-K filed on March 19, 2007, the Financial Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors formed an Ad Hoc Committee of three independent directors to review the Company’s procedures, conclusions and recommendations regarding the LTC Review, as described herein.

Purposes and Scope of the LTC Review

The LTC Review was designed and conducted principally to determine whether any adjustments to the Company’s prior period financial statements were required as a result of incorrect accounting for share-based compensation, which includes stock options and restricted stock units. A secondary purpose of the LTC Review was to evaluate the Company’s historical practices and procedures for making share-based compensation awards, including the conduct of individuals involved in the granting process.

The Company determined that a ten-year review period covering the years 1997-2006 (the “Review Period”) was appropriate. Supporting documentation was more readily available in more recent years and, in many instances, the Company experienced difficulty locating and/or gathering documentation for the years 1997-1999. Therefore, the Company determined that a review of years preceding 1997 was unlikely to result in information susceptible to meaningful analysis.

A significant accounting issue identified in the LTC Review related to the determination of the “measurement date” with respect to share-based compensation awards. During the Review Period, the Company had generally used the indicated grant date as the measurement date for accounting purposes, when in many cases the indicated grant date actually preceded the measurement date as correctly defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). The U.S. GAAP technical accounting


literature in effect during the accounting periods under review defined the measurement date for purposes of determining share-based compensation expense as the date on which the Company finalized an individual’s share-based award, to include the number of units awarded at a determinable strike price.

The Company gathered documentation and conducted analysis related to measurement dates with respect to all of the grants awarded in the Review Period, a total of approximately 29,600 stock option grants, representing approximately 45,380,000 options as well as approximately 4,000,000 restricted stock units for non-directors. These grants included both the Company’s annual compensation awards, known as “on-cycle” grants, and all awards made at other times, referred to as “off-cycle” grants. The LTC Review was designed to assess the appropriate measurement date for each of the various types of grants awarded during the Review Period. The Company considered SEC guidance and GAAP in evaluating known facts and circumstances in an attempt reasonably to determine the date that the share-based compensation awards were final. The Company collected information through targeted searches of various sources, including human resources and accounting databases, paper and electronic files and servers, Board of Directors and Compensation Committee meeting minutes, payroll records, and acquisition and business development documentation. The Company also interviewed certain current and former employees, officers and directors.

Although there generally was less documentation readily available for the years 1997-1999, the Company did review grants in those years, and based on available information, attempted to make a reasonable assessment of the correct measurement dates and potential accounting adjustments for the purposes of assessing whether any charge from that period could be material to the Company’s financial statements in those years. Based on this analysis, the Company determined that any errors identified during that period would not have resulted in a material impact to the Company’s stockholders’ equity and no adjustments were made.

The Company’s Accounting Adjustments

As a result of the LTC Review, the Company has determined that adjustments resulting in charges for share-based compensation should be recorded for the years 2000 through 2005. The additional cumulative pre-tax compensation expense totals $36 million ($26 million net of taxes). The effect of recognizing additional non-cash, share-based compensation expense resulting from the charges mentioned above by year is as follows:

Fiscal Year Ended (in millions)

 

 

 

Pre-Tax
Expense

 

After-Tax
Expense

 

2000

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

2001

 

 

$

15

 

 

 

$

11

 

 

2002

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

5

 

 

2003

 

 

$

4

 

 

 

$

3

 

 

2004

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

2005

 

 

$

1

 

 

 

$

1

 

 

The Company also is recording a charge of $0.6 million (pre-tax) relating to the first three previously reported quarters of 2006, which primarily relate to prior year grants in which expense was carried forward to 2006.

None of these adjustments, individually or in the aggregate, is quantitatively material to any period presented; however, the Company will reflect these adjustments by reducing stockholders’ equity by $12$25.2 million as of January 1, 2003 as2004 for the cumulative effect of the correction of errors for allthe periods proceedingfrom January 1, 2003, and restated its consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 and its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004.

The restatement adjustments resulted in an increase to previously reported net income of $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 and in a decrease to previously reported net income of $17 million for the year ended2000 through December 31, 2003. There was no impact on gross margin or net cash flow from operating activities of the Company for any years presented. Based upon management’s review it has been determined that these errors were inadvertentGeneral and unintentional. The errors relate to the following areas:

A.              Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Company determined that it failed to perform adequate on-going effectiveness testing for three interest rate cash flow hedges and one foreign currency cash flow hedge during 2004 as required by SFAS No. 133. As a result, the Company should have discontinued hedge accounting and recognized changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments in earnings prospectively from the last valid effectiveness assessment until the earlier of either (1) the expiration of the derivative instrument or (2) the re-designation of the derivative instrument as a hedging activity.

The net impact related to the correction of these errors to previously reported net income resulted in a decrease of $4 million and an increase of $2 millionadministrative expense will be adjusted for the years ending December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.2005 and the first three quarters of 2006 as outlined above.


Annual On-Cycle Awards.   Compensation charges for annual on-cycle grants were determined based upon facts and circumstances relating to the dates the awards were final and the selection of the appropriate strike prices. The Company determined new measurement dates based on a determination of the date an award was final using the following methodology. Grants to Executive Officers and certain other senior executives (“Senior Leaders”) were considered to be final for accounting purposes upon Compensation Committee approval of a fixed number of options at a specific exercise price, or in certain years based on subsequent action by the Company establishing the grant date and strike price. Grants to all other employees were considered to be final for accounting purposes on the date that management completed its allocation of substantially all awards to the pool of employees receiving awards. In addition to measurement date changes, the LTC Review identified three years in which the Company had set the strike price for the annual on-cycle grants either as the opening price or as the intra-day low trading price of the Company’s stock during a four-day period over which a Board meeting was held. To determine the fair market value of the stock on the re-determined measurement date for accounting purposes, the Company used the closing price of the stock on that date. Accordingly, for financial accounting purposes, the amount of compensation expense recorded by the Company reflects both measurement date changes and intrinsic value changes for annual on-cycle awards. The predominant causes of the charges relating to on-cycle grants were (i) with respect to Executive Officers and Senior Leaders, use of a grant date associated with an annual Board meeting, where the grant date and strike price had not been determined with finality until several days after the meeting; and (ii) with respect to all other employees, the failure to finalize a complete and accurate schedule of the awards to be made to the employees contemporaneously with the intended grant date.

B.Off-Cycle Grants.   Income TaxCompensation charges for off-cycle grants also were based primarily upon the dates the awards were final. The majority of the measurement date changes with respect to off-cycle grants related to the following five categories: (1) awards to newly hired employees; (2) awards upon promotions of existing employees or other change in status; (3) awards made in conjunction with transactions or other successful business development efforts; (4) “Founders” and Minority Interest Adjustmentsother similar awards made in recognition of outstanding service, and (5) corrections to previous awards subsequently determined to have been erroneous.

The predominant cause of the measurement date errors in each of these categories of awards was the lack of adequate contemporaneous documentation supporting the intended grant. Accordingly, the amount of compensation expense recorded by the Company for these categories of off-cycle awards is based primarily upon measurement date changes. The adjustments reflect available evidence concerning the dates on which: (i) the recipients were entitled to receive the awards, (ii) the grants were intended to be made, and (iii) the terms of the grants were final.

In addition to the categories above, off-cycle grants also were defined to include modifications of prior grants. Compensation charges for grant modifications were based upon an analysis of changes to vesting and exercise periods. As a result of its review, the Company has determined that certain modifications were calculated using an incorrect method and others were not communicated to appropriate accounting personnel. The most significant modification relates to a grant to a former CEO that was erroneously accounted for by using an intrinsic value calculation instead of a fair value calculation following the Company’s decision to adopt FAS 123 effective January 1, 2003. The Company is recording a $3 million charge to account for this error for the year 2003.

Summary of Significant Charges By Grant Year

Set forth in this section is a summary of the charges resulting from grants awarded in the years 2000, 2001 and 2003, which make up more than 95% of the additional expenses requiring adjustments to the prior period financial statements. This information is different than the discussion and table above, which described the effect of recognizing these additional charges over the applicable accounting periods in the


Company’s financial statements. For these years, further information concerning the type of grant (on-cycle or off-cycle), the categories of the recipients and the nature of the change resulting in the adjustment is set out below.

For grants made in 2000, the total charge resulting from the LTC Review is approximately $23 million. Of that amount, approximately $4 million resulted from the changes to the on-cycle grants to Executive Officers and Senior Leaders. Of the remaining amount, approximately $17 million resulted from the changes to the on-cycle grants to all other employees, and approximately $2 million resulted from off-cycle grants.

For grants made in 2001, the total charge resulting from the LTC Review is approximately $9 million. Of that amount, approximately $7 million resulted from the changes to on-cycle grants to Executive Officers and Senior Leaders. Of the remaining amount, approximately $250,000 resulted from the changes to the on-cycle grants to all other employees, and approximately $1 million resulted from off-cycle grants.

For grants made in 2003, the total charge is approximately $6 million. Of this amount, $3 million related to the modification to a grant to a former CEO as described above, and approximately $800,000 related to a grant to a director approved by shareholders where the grant date was recorded as having been finalized on the date of an earlier Board meeting. The remaining charges resulted from changes to certain on-cycle and off-cycle grants.

The Company’s Review of Historic Practices

As noted, the primary purpose of the LTC Review was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Company’s accounting for share-based compensation and to record any required adjustments in its financial statements. The LTC Review was not an independent investigation relating to historic practices and procedures. However, during the course of the LTC Review, the Company identified certain historical practices raising issues relating to share-based compensation and conducted a review of those practices, limited in scope as noted herein. Based on the information to date, the Company has identified certain historical issues and practices of concern relating to the annual on-cycle and off-cycle grants, which fall within the following five categories: (1) with respect to the 1997-1998 annual on-cycle grants, reported ratification of undocumented prior on-cycle grants by the Compensation Committee; (2) with respect to the 1999-2001 annual grants, after-the-fact selection of low strike prices within the four-day period during which Board meetings were held, and inaccurate Compensation Committee meeting minutes relating to grant date and strike price selection; (3) issuance of off-cycle grants prior to 2004 based on apparent, but not actual, delegation of authority, as well as general deficiencies in administration of off-cycle grants; (4) failure to establish and/or comply with certain formal corporate governance procedures in periods through 2004; and (5) lack of and/or insufficient controls and procedures, and/or lack of knowledge of applicable accounting standards, in connection with administration of share-based compensation. The Company notes that the senior officers who were primarily involved in the selection of the prices of the annual on-cycle grants from 1999-2001 were the Company’s President and CEO at the time, who retired in 2002; the Company’s CFO at the time, who left full time employment with the Company in early 2006 (he remains under an employment agreement through March 2008, although he is not active in management); and the Company’s General Counsel at the time, who presently is the Company’s Executive Vice President and President, Alternative Energy and is no longer involved in the Company’s legal functions or Board consideration or approval of share-based compensation.

The information developed in the LTC Review did not establish that any officer or director of the Company manipulated the selection of grant dates or strike prices with actual knowledge that they were violating or causing the Company to violate accounting principles or requirements of the Company’s stock options plans, or that there was any effort to conceal information relating to the selection of grant dates or strike prices from the Company’s outside auditors. However, all of the matters described herein with respect to the Company’s general views and issues arising from the LTC Review are qualified by the fact


that, in light of the limitations discussed herein, there may be additional documents, witnesses or other information not reviewed that might have indicated a different result.

The limitations of the LTC Review include the fact that the Company did not review backups of data from the First Class System (“First Class”), the Company’s e-mail system prior to January 1, 2002, when the Company switched to Microsoft Outlook. The Company also did not attempt to restore approximately 460 computer tapes (the “Backup Tapes”) that are stored by an off-site storage vendor. The Company believes that these tapes comprise backups of certain Company electronic data (including e-mail) backed up on certain dates from approximately late 2001 through early 2004, but the Company has not located an index identifying the contents of the tapes.

The Company decided not to attempt to restore and review First Class or the Backup Tapes because: (i) the Company was able to review certain electronic data, including for the years 1997-2002, as well as paper files and other available information relating to the majority of the grants made during the Review Period; (ii) the Company believes that it is unlikely that information from these sources would materially alter the accounting adjustments that have been determined to be necessary; (iii) the Company has implemented or will implement measures necessary to provide effective controls and procedures in these areas; (iv) of the senior officers who were primarily involved in the selection of the prices of the annual on-cycle grants from 1999-2001, the former CEO is no longer with the Company, the former CFO is no longer an officer and is not active in the Company’s management, and the former General Counsel has a different position in the Company that does not involve corporate legal responsibilities or participation in Board consideration or approval of share-based compensation; and (v) based on consultation with a reputable information technology vendor, the Company determined that neither First Class nor the Backup Tapes could be restored for review without causing substantial delays in the LTC Review. In addition, while the Company conducted more than twenty interviews with persons who, by virtue of their position or otherwise, were believed to be most likely to have relevant knowledge, the Company did not interview every director or employee who may have had any involvement with options grants or accounting for share-based compensation.

Sale of EDC

On February 22, 2007, we entered into a definitive agreement with Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., (“PDVSA”), pursuant to which we have agreed to sell to PDVSA all of our shares of EDC. The agreement is dated as of February 15, 2007.

Subject to the terms and conditions in the agreement, PDVSA has agreed to pay us a purchase price of US$739 million at closing, net of any withholding taxes. In addition, the agreement provided for the payment of a US$120 million dividend in 2007. On March 1, 2007, the shareholders of EDC approved and declared a US$120 million dividend, payable on March 16, 2007, to all shareholders on record as of March 9, 2007. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company is the owner of 82.14% of the outstanding shares of EDC, and therefore, on March 16, 2007, this subsidiary received the equivalent of approximately US$99 million in Bolivares that is currently being held in trust at a U.S. bank until the funds can be converted to U.S. Dollars. Under the terms of the purchase and sale agreement with the Republic of Venezuela, PDVSA has agreed to ensure that the Company’s portion of the dividend is converted by the Venezuelan government’s Foreign Exchange Commission, CADIVI, from Bolivares into U.S. Dollars at the current official exchange rate within 90 days of the dividend payment date. As of the date of this filing, the conversion of the Company’s portion of the dividend from Bolivares to U.S. Dollars has been submitted to CADIVI and is awaiting their approval.

The agreement provided that PDVSA would acquire our EDC common shares in a tender offer. PDVSA commenced and publicly announced the commencement of concurrent tender offers in Venezuela and the United States (the “Offers”), on April 9, 2007. The Offers provided for the purchase of 2,704,445,687 of EDC common shares at a U.S. Dollar equivalent amount of $0.2734 per common share,


which is consistent with the price per share implied by the purchase price within the agreement. The closing of the Offers occurred on May 8, 2007 and the actual transfer of the shares along with payment of the purchase price occurred on May 16, 2007.

As a result of signing this agreement, we have concluded that a material impairment of our investment in EDC has occurred, which will be recorded in the Company’sfirst quarter ending March 31, 2007. This material impairment represents the net book value of our investment less the estimated purchase price. Management estimates that this pre-tax, non-cash charge will be in the range of $600 to $650 million.

We purchased a controlling interest in EDC in 2000. EDC is the largest private electric utility in Venezuela. It is a provider of power and light to approximately one million customers in the Caracas metropolitan area. EDC also owns and operates five generation plants with a total of 2,616 MW of generation capacity. These facilities collectively represent approximately 14% of the electricity consumed in Venezuela.

For the year end closing review process,ended December 31, 2006, EDC represented 5% of AES’ consolidated revenues and 12% of the Company discovered certain other errorsLatin America Utilities segment revenues, 5% of AES’ consolidated gross margin and 17% of the Latin America Utilities segment gross margin. In addition, EDC represented 37% of AES’ consolidated net income and 36% of basic earnings per share. Excluding the net after-tax loss impact of $512 million related to the recordingsale of income tax liabilitiesEletropaulo shares and minority interest expense. The adjustments primarily include:

·       An increase in income tax expense related to the recordingdebt restructuring, EDC represented 12% of certain historical withholding tax liabilities at one of our El Salvador subsidiaries;

·       An increase in minority interest expense related to a correction of the allocation of income tax expense to minority shareholders. This allocation pertained to certain deferred tax adjustments recorded in the original restatement at one of our Brazilian generating companies. In addition,


minority interest expense was also corrected at this subsidiary as a result of identifying differences arising from a more comprehensive reconciliation of prior year statutory financial records to U.S. GAAP financial statements.

·       A reduction of 2004 income tax expense related to adjustments derived from 2004 income tax returns filed in 2005.

The net impact related to the correction of these errors to previously reportedAES’ consolidated net income resultedand 12% of basic earnings per share. AES received a dividend of approximately $101 million from EDC in an increase2006. EDC’s five generation plants represented approximately 7% of $10 million and a decreaseAES’ approximate 35 gigawatts of $19 million for the years ending December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. In addition, the Company restated stockholders’ equity as of January 1, 2003 by $12 million as a correction for these errors in all periods preceding January 1, 2003.

C.               Other Balance Sheet Reclassifications

Certain other balance sheet reclassifications were recorded at December 31, 2004 including a $45 million reclassification which reduced Accounts Receivables and increased Other Current Assets (regulatory assets).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our restated consolidated financial statements and notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, and other information included in this report.capacity installed.

Who Are We?Executive Summary

AES is one of the world’s largest global power companies, providing essential electricity services in 27 countries on five continents. Our goal is to continue building on our traditional lines of business, while expanding into other essential energy-related areas. We believe that this is a natural expansion for us. As we move into new lines of business, we will leverage the competitive advantages that result from our unique global footprint, local market insights and our operational and business development expertise. We also will build on our existing capabilities in areas beyond power including greenhouse gas emissions offset projects, electricity transmission, water desalinization, and other businesses. As we continue to expand and grow our business we will maintain a focus on efforts to improve our business operations and management processes, including our internal controls over financial reporting.

Our business strategy is focused on global growth in our core generation and utilities businesses along with growth in related markets such as Alternative Energy, electricity transmission and water desalinization. We continue to emphasize growth through “greenfield” development, platform expansion, privatization of government-owned assets, and mergers and acquisitions and continue to develop and maintain a strong development pipeline of projects and opportunities. The Company sees growth investments as the most significant contributor to long-term shareholder value creation. The Company’s growth strategies are complemented by an increased emphasis on portfolio management through which AES has and will continue to sell or monetize a portion of certain businesses or assets when market values appear significantly higher than the Companies’ own assessment of value in the AES portfolio.

Underpinning this growth focus is an operating model which benefits from a diverse power generation portfolio that is largely contracted, reducing fuel cost and demand risks, and from an electric utility portfolio heavily weighted to faster-growing emerging markets.

86




The Company anticipates that success with its business development activities will be the single most important factor in its financial success in terms of value creation and it is directing increasing resources in support of business development globally. The Company also anticipates that high oil prices, increasing regulation of greenhouse gases, faster than expected global economic growth and a weak dollar present opportunities for value creation, based on the Company’s current business portfolio and business strategies. Slower global economic growth, which will impact demand growth for Utilities and some Generation businesses, is the most significant downside scenario affecting value creation. Other important scenarios that could impair future value include low oil prices and a strong dollar.

Business Overview

We are a global power company managed to meet the growing demand for electricity in ways that benefit all of our stakeholders. AES is a holding company that through itsincorporated in Delaware in 1981. Through our subsidiaries, and affiliates owns and operateswe operate a portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses and investments on five continents and in 2527 countries. We seek to capture the benefits of our global expertise and economies of scale in our operations. Predictable and growing cash flow, an efficient capital structure, operating and portfolio risk management, and world-class operating performance are the focus of our management efforts.

WhatOur Businesses Are We In?

We operate in two principaltypes of businesses. The first is the generation of power for saleour distribution and transmission business, which we refer to as Utilities, in which we operate electric utilities and other wholesale customers. The second is the operation of electric utilities which distributesell power to customers in the retail (including residential), commercial, industrial and governmental customers. Our financial resultssectors. These customers are reportedtypically end users of electricity. The second is our Generation business, where we sell power to wholesale customers such as three business segments, two for the generation businessutilities or other intermediaries. The revenues and one for the utility business.earnings growth of both our Utilities and Generation businesses vary with changes in electricity demand.

Our Utilities business consists primarily of 13 distribution companies in seven countries with over 10 million end-user customers. All of these companies operate in a defined service area. This segment is composed of:

·       integrated utilities located in:

·        the United States—Indianapolis Power & Light (“IPL”),

·        Cameroon—AES SONEL.

·       distribution companies located in:

·        Brazil—AES Eletropaulo and AES Sul,

·        Argentina—Empresa Distribuidora La Plata S.A. (“EDELAP”), Empresa Distribuidora de Energia Norte (“EDEN”) and Empresa Distribuidora de Energia Sure (“EDES”),

·        El Salvador—Compañia de Alumbrado Eléctrico de San Salvador, S.A. de C.V. (“CAESS”), Compania, S. En C. de C.V. (“AES CLESA”), Distribuidora Electrica de Usulutan, S.A. de C.V. (“DEUSEM”) and Empresa Electrica de Oriente (“EEO”), and

·        Ukraine—Kievoblenergo and Rivneenergo.

Performance drivers for these businesses may be significantly affected byinclude, among other things, reliability of service, management of working capital, negotiation of tariff adjustments, compliance with extensive regulatory requirements and, in developing countries, reduction of commercial and technical losses.

Utilities face relatively little direct competition due to significant barriers to entry which are present in these markets. In this segment, we primarily face competition in our efforts to acquire businesses. We compete against a number of risks, uncertaintiesother participants, some of which have greater financial resources, have been engaged in distribution related businesses for periods longer than we have, and have accumulated more significant portfolios. Relevant competitive factors for Utilities include financial resources, governmental assistance, regulatory restrictions and access to non-recourse financing. In certain locations, our utilities


face increased competition as a result of changes in laws and regulations which allow wholesale and retail services to be provided on a competitive basis. We can provide no assurance that deregulation will not adversely affect the future operations, cash flows and financial condition of our Utilities business. The results of operations of our Utilities business are sensitive to changes in economic growth and regulation, abnormal weather conditions in the area in which they operate, as well as the success of the operational changes that have been implemented (especially in emerging markets).

In our Generation business, we generate and sell electricity primarily to wholesale customers. Performance drivers for our Generation business include, among other factors. Important factors that could affect financial results are discussedthings, plant reliability, fuel costs and fixed-cost management. Growth in this business is largely tied to securing new power purchase agreements, expanding capacity in our existing facilities and building new power plants. Our Generation business includes our interests in 97 power generation facilities owned or operated under Section 1A, Risk Factors.

What Are Our Reporting Segments?

We report our generation business under two reporting segments, contract generation and competitive supply. These segments together consist of approximately 36.4management agreements totaling over 35 gigawatts of generating capacity from 107 power plantsinstalled in 2021 countries.

Our contract generation businesses principally sell electricity to utilities or other wholesale customersApproximately 68% of the revenues from our Generation business are from plants that operate under power purchase agreements (“PPA”) of generally five years or longer and for 75% or more of theirthe output capacity. These PPAs are designedlong-term contracts reduce the risk associated with volatility in the market price for electricity. We also reduce our exposure to providefuel supply risks by entering into long-term fuel supply contracts or through fuel tolling contracts where the customer assumes full responsibility for purchasing and supplying the fuel to the power plant. As a result of these contractual agreements, these facilities have relatively predictable recoverycash flows and earnings. These facilities face most of their competition prior to the costsexecution of buildinga power sales agreement, during the development phase of a project. Our competitors for these contracts include other independent power producers and operating our plantsequipment manufacturers, as well as generating a return onvarious utilities and their affiliates. During the operational phase, we traditionally have faced limited competition due to the long-term nature of the generation contracts. However, since competitive power markets have been introduced and new market participants have been added, we have and will continue to encounter increased competition in attracting new customers and maintaining our investment. Fuel supply cost risk is often limited contractually either through contract price escalation provisions or through tolling arrangements where we convert the customer’s fuel into electricity. Through these contractual agreements, the businesses generally reduce commodity and electricity price volatility and thereby increase the predictabilitycurrent customers as our existing contracts expire.

The balance of their gross margin, net income and cash flow.


Our competitive supply businesses sell electricity to wholesale customersour Generation business sells power through competitive markets and, asunder short term contracts or directly in the spot market. As a result, the cash flows and earnings of such businessesassociated with these facilities are more sensitive to fluctuations in the market price offor electricity, as well as natural gas, coal and other fuels. However, for a number of these facilities, including our U.S. competitive supply businessplants in New York, which includesinclude a fleet of low-cost coal fired plants, in New York, we typically hedgehave hedged the majority of our exposure to fuel, exposure on a rolling two year basis.

Our regulated utilities consist of 14 distribution companies in seven countriesenergy and emissions pricing for the next several years. These facilities compete with approximately 11 million end-user customers. Three of these utilities, in the U.S., Venezuelanumerous other independent power producers, energy marketers and Cameroon, are integrated utilities providing both power generation and distribution. The remaining utilities, located in Brazil, El Salvador, Argentina, and Ukraine, are solelytraders, energy merchants, transmission and distribution businesses. Only oneproviders and retail energy suppliers. Competitive factors for these facilities include price, reliability, operational cost and third party credit requirements.

As described above, AES operates within two primary businesses, the generation of electricity and the distribution of electricity. AES previously reported its financial results in three business segments: contract generation, competitive supply and regulated utilities. As of December 31, 2006, we have changed the definition of our regulated utilities, Indianapolis Powersegments in order to report information by geographic region and Light (IPL), is locatedby line of business. We believe this change more accurately reflects the manner in which we manage the U.S.Company.

The largest part of our utility business portfolio operates in emerging markets, where electricity demand is expectedOur businesses include Utilities and Generation within four defined geographic regions: (1) North America, (2) Latin America, (3) Europe, CIS and Africa, which we refer to grow at a higher rate than in more developed countries. However, we are exposed to foreign currency, political, payment,as “Europe & Africa” and economic risks(4) Asia and significant electricity theft-related losses within developing countries. The challenge within all of these businesses is to provide dependable and quality service to a diverse customer base and achieve appropriate returns on investment through tariff increases, cost management and prudent capital investment.

In 2005, we realigned our management reporting structure into four regions: North America; Latin America; Europe,the Middle East, which we refer to as “Asia”. Three regions, North America, Latin America and Europe & Africa, (“EMEA”); and Asia, each led by a regional president who reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). This realignment allowed us to place senior leaders and resources closer to the businesses to further improve operating performance and integrate operations and development on a more localized level. This structure will help us leverage regional market trends to enhance our competitiveness and identify and capitalize on key business development opportunities. The organizational changes are expected to streamline some corporate functions to more effectively support AES businesses around the globe.

The Company also maintains a corporate Business Development group which manages large scale transactions such as mergers and acquisitions, and portfolio management, as well as targeted strategic initiatives. In addition to our primary business of operating a global power portfolio, we are engaged in exploringboth our Generation and promoting a setUtility businesses. Our Asia region only has Generation businesses. Accordingly, these businesses and regions account for seven segments. “Corporate and Other” includes corporate overhead costs which are not directly associated with the operations of our seven primary operating segments; interest income and expense; other intercompany charges such as management fees and self-insurance premiums which are fully eliminated in consolidation; and


development and operational costs related activities that include alternative energy businessesto our Alternative Energy business which is currently not material to our presentation of operating segments.

Recent Initiatives

We are developing an Alternative Energy business. Alternative Energy includes strategic initiatives such as wind generation the supply ofand other renewable energy sources, liquefied natural gas regasification (“LNG”), greenhouse gas emissions offset projects and new technologies. Of these initiatives, we currently only have wind generation facilities that are operational. Our Buffalo Gap wind project, which is located in Texas, began full commercial operations in April 2006. An expansion of Buffalo Gap, called Buffalo Gap 2, is currently under construction. We also acquired wind generation assets in California from Enron Wind Systems. In Europe, we have acquired stakes in wind development businesses in Scotland, France, and Bulgaria.

We currently have three LNG projects that are in pre-construction phases of development. We are also pursuing projects which will allow us to certain targeteddevelop greenhouse gas emission offsets. To that end, we have developed a joint venture with AgCert International called AES AgriVerde, which will deploy greenhouse gas emissions reduction technology in selected countries in Asia, Europe and North AmericanAfrica. Although, Alternative Energy represents a very small portion of our business compared to Utilities and Generation, Alternative Energy is an important initiative in our long-term strategy because we believe it may represent a significant growth opportunity for us.

Some of the important drivers of performance for us developing our alternative energy businesses include continued government support through regulation and incentives, continued progress towards liquid and transparent markets, particularly in the productionarea of greenhouse gas reduction activitiesemission credit trading and the successful identification, execution and commercialization of new energy technologies. At present,market opportunities in these initiatives representnascent markets. While this initiative represents a growth opportunitiesopportunity for us, but currently account for a de minimus amount of revenue and earnings.

What Did We Focus On In 2005?

In 2005, we focused on global operational excellence, deleveraging and credit improvement, and our growth strategies. Our operational focus included (a) safety, (b) plant and distribution system operational excellence and (c) customer service. Our deleveraging and credit improvement focus included (a) paying down $2.7 billion in debt, including $254 million at the parent company, (b) extending maturities of subsidiary debt, (c) improving parent liquidity, and (d) gaining improved parent and subsidiary credit quality and ratings. It was also a yearalternative energy is not material to rebuild our growth development pipeline under a new organization structure implemented midyear. We completed the restatement of our prior year Form 10-K and are continuing to develop and implement action plans to address the material weaknesses within our financial reporting processes.statements at this time.

How Did We Do?2006 Performance Highlights

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

Revenue

 

$

12,299

 

$

11,021

 

$

9,392

 

Gross Margin

 

3,631

 

3,199

 

2,791

 

Gross Margin as a % of Revenue

 

29.5

%

29.0

%

29.7

%

Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share from Continuing Operations

 

0.43

 

0.87

 

0.41

 

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities

 

2,411

 

2,154

 

1,608

 

Revenue—We achieved record revenues in 2005 of $11.1$12.3 billion, an increase of 17%11.8% from $9.5$11.0 billion last year. FavorableHigher power prices, largely driven by the pass-through of higher fuel costs, together with increased demand and favorable foreign currency trends and higher prices ledwere the increase.primary contributors.

Gross margin—We achieved record gross margin of $3.6 billion, an increase of 12.5% from $3.2 billion in 2005. Favorable volume and foreign currency translation were the primary contributors to the increase.

—Gross Earnings per sharemargin increased 14%Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations were $0.43 compared to $3.2 billion,$0.87 in 2005. This decrease was primarily driven by the Brazil restructuring charges. Excluding the Brazil restructuring charges, earnings per share increased due to higher revenues.gross margin (primarily Latin American volume and foreign exchange) and lower net interest expense (debt retirements and lower interest rates). These gains were partially offset by higher general and administrative expenses resulting from increased


development spending. The restructuring of our Brazil holding company, Brasiliana, eliminated restrictions on dividend payments to AES from three of our four principal Brazil businesses (Eletropaulo, Tiete, and Uruguiana). The restructuring resulted in non-cash after-tax charges totaling $512 million, or $0.76 per share, primarily related to a loss on sale of Eletropaulo stock in a secondary offering recognizing deferred currency adjustments and certain debt prepayment premiums, partially offset by favorable tax benefits.

Net cash from operating activitiesOur We also achieved record cash flow increased 38% to $2.2flows from operating activities of $2.4 billion, driven by9.1% higher net earnings (adjusted for non-cash items),than 2005. Higher operating cash flows primarily reflect an increase in other assets net earnings adjusted for non cash items.

Key Initiatives

People Development

People development continues to be a major initiative as we look to improve our technical and leadership skills. We continued to expand the AES learning Center, a program developed in partnership with the University of other liabilities,Virginia’s Darden School of Business, which offers a range of courses on effective leadership, general management and functional skills, such as finance. In 2006, the Center launched a Financial Leadership Development Program to elevate performance among our financial groups worldwide. We also expanded the program internationally to Brazil, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, the Middle East and Ukraine. In addition to classroom training, we added an online AES Learning Center and now have an inventory of more than 150 technical and managerial courses offered online, making these classes available on a real-time basis.

We continue to place top priority on ensuring a safe working environment for AES people, contractors and customers.  In 2006, we saw continuing improvements in the number of lost time accidents (LTAs) at our businesses.

Material Weaknesses

Over the course of the past year, the Company has worked diligently to continue to strengthen its controls over financial reporting, with particular emphasis on remediating its material weaknesses related to:

·       US GAAP accounting expertise in Brazil;

·       Income tax accounting;

·       Derivative accounting; and

·       Foreign currency implications of certain intercompany loans.

This effort involved a continuing review of current processes, implementation of remediation plans and a decreasefocus on staffing with the right level and quality of technical accounting resources. We have focused our internal audit resources on performing additional targeted financial statement audits and have brought in working capital.

Earnings per share—Dilutedearnings per share from continuing operations increased 132%outside expertise in the areas of derivatives and tax to $0.95 in 2005 from $0.41 in 2004. Higher revenue and gross margin, together with favorable foreign currency transaction effects ledhelp us expedite our improvement plans. In addition to this specific focus, the improvement.

What Was The Restatement About?

At the end of 2004, the Company identified a material weakness related to its accounting for deferred income taxes and embarked upon a global processprogram to documentassess the deferred income tax calculationscapabilities of its financial staff on a worldwide basis and develop related hiring and training programs. We have approved a program to performaccelerate our implementation of integrated financial systems for our generation plants, which will allow for further automation of currently manual processes and more detailed reconciliations at its foreign subsidiaries. In July 2005 the Company determined that errors found during that process required a restatement, which was completed in January 2006. The restatement required that the Company re-file its 2004 Form 10-Ktimely submission and its previously issued Form 10-Q for the first quarterreview of 2005. The most significant adjustments involved areas of accounting that required a high degree of interpretation and/or judgment involving transactions which occurred during and prior to 2002. Management concluded that all errors were both inadvertent and unintentional. The income tax restatement errors identified primarily relate to:

·       the calculation of deferred income taxes related to certain purchase accounting adjustments for acquisitions,

·       the correct application of foreign currency translation of certain deferred income tax balances, and

·       the correction of other income tax accounts related to a review and reconciliation of prior year income tax returns.financial statements.

As a result of extended review procedures,these continued efforts, we did identify certain other adjustments relatedprior year errors which caused the Company to restate prior year results again. Even so, we feel confident that the financial and control


organizations are taking the right steps, with full management support, to help us ensure that we are able to produce accurate and timely financial statements in the future.

Debt Restructuring

Our existing businesses continued to focus on plant and distribution system operational excellence, reliability and customer service. We also benefited from favorable debt capital markets in a number of countries to restructure and refinance debt, extend maturities, and increase liquidity. In many instances favorable market conditions permitted refinancing dollar-denominated obligations into local currency, to reduce overall foreign exchange exposure.

Growth Projects and Building a Pipeline of New Initiatives

Portfolio management, which can include business restructuring and sale of all or a portion of businesses, was an important area of focus and success in 2006. We achieved important milestones in restructuring several of our Brazil businesses through a secondary offering of shares in our Eletropaulo subsidiary and using the proceeds to retire debt that had restrictive covenants precluding dividend payments to be received by AES. We sold a minority share of our Gener subsidiary in Chile, which increased the liquidity of those shares and we believe reduced the discount the local Chile stock market had been placing on Gener shares due to the classificationprior illiquidity. We also sold our 50% equity position in a power project in Canada and sold a power plant in the U.K., both in negotiated transactions. We have worked hard to manage operational and financial risk through appropriate use of cash versus short-term investments, consolidation, acquisition and translation accounting and revenue deferrals related to a Brazilian energy efficiency program, were identified and corrected.

In addition, subsequent to the filing of the Company’s restated financial statements as described above, the Company identified certain other errors which led us to restate our 2003 and 2004 year end numbers and the quarterly periods for 2004. These adjustments related largely to the correction of income tax expense and minority interest expense upon additional year end review of certain calculations performed during the earlier restatement process. Additionally, we identified certain derivative adjustments related to the proper documentation and treatment of a cash flow foreign currency hedge and cash flow interest rate, hedges at certain of ourenergy, and foreign businesses.exchange risk management instruments and through effective procurement strategies.

How Are We Addressing Our Material Weaknesses?continued to build a robust business development pipeline and extend that pipeline into new areas such as greenhouse gas emission reduction projects and electricity transmission. In the core Generation business, we brought one new power project into service in 2006, a 1,200 MW, $920 million gas-fired power project in Cartagena, Spain (included in Europe & Africa generation). We began construction on a new 670 MW lignite-fired power plant in Bulgaria, supported by a long-term customer contract and included in Europe & Africa generation, and have secured new long-term customer contracts for new projects in Chile, Jordan and Panama. We also entered into purchase agreements to acquire two generation facilities in Mexico, which we consummated in February 2007.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company reported material weaknesses related to the following areas: accounting for income taxes; an aggregation of control deficiencies at our Cameroonian subsidiary; a lack of U.S. GAAP expertise and review in our Brazilian businesses; the treatment of intercompany loans denominated in other than the functional currency; and, accounting for derivatives.

Management, the Audit Committee and our Board of Directors are committed to the remediation of the material weaknesses and the continued improvement of theThe Company’s overall system of internal control over financial reporting. Over the last several years, in recognition of the decentralized and complex nature of our organization, management, the Audit committee and the Board of Directors have taken steps to improve the quality of the people, processes and systems within the Company’s income tax, accounting, financial reporting, internal control, compliance and internal audit functions. This included creating several new Corporate leadership positions as well as adding staffing to these functions.

In response to the material weaknesses reportedgrowth project backlog (growth projects under construction) as of December 31, 2005, management has developed remediation plans for each2006 totaled over 1,500 gross MW of the weaknesses and is undergoing continued efforts to strengthen


the existing finance organization and systems across the Company. These efforts include the reorganizationnew generation capacity with total expected investment of the Company-wide accounting and tax functions to align the local business finance functions with teams at the Corporate office. In addition, the Company is continuing to further expand the number of accounting and tax personnel at the Corporate office who will provide technical support and oversight of our global financial processes, as well as adding additional finance resources to our subsidiaries.approximately $3.2 billion through 2011. This accelerated hiring effort began in February 2006, and, once completed, is expected to result in approximately 50 additional personnel within the Corporate finance organization as well as additional personnel at our subsidiaries, particularly those subsidiaries where material weaknesses were found. While the recruiting and reorganization effort is underway, the Company will continue to use third parties to provide assistance in the performance of relevant accounting and tax procedures, as well as provide assistance in the development and execution of the remediation plans.

In its effort to develop a world-class finance organization, the Company is preparing a finance leadership development program, in partnership with an international leader in management education, that is expected to begin offering courses for our finance professionals in June 2006. In addition, various levels of training programs on specific aspects of U.S. GAAP are being developed for distribution to our subsidiaries during 2006. In March 2006, the Company completed its first in-depth training related to Accounting for Income Taxes, with participation from approximately 100 AES professionals from our Corporate office, domestic, and international subsidiaries.

While the Company continues to refine and execute its remediation efforts, it will utilize additional resources to assist in the program management aspect of each material weakness remediation plan and has committed to provide status reports to our external auditors and our Audit Committee of the Board of Directors on a monthly basis throughout 2006.

What Key Growth Projects are Underway?

Our largest growth project under construction remains a 1,200 MW gas-fired power plant in Cartagena, Spain. This project is scheduled for completion in 2006, and will provide power under long-term contract to Gaz de France which will sell into the Spanish merchant power market. Other important growthincludes fossil-fueled projects under construction include 120 MW diesel-fired peaking facility to serve the largest power market in Chile and Bulgaria, a 120 MW wind farmhydroelectric project in Texas. BothPanama, and a wind project in the US. We also secured early-stage memorandums of theseunderstanding to develop power projects are scheduled to be on-line in 2006countries such as well. Vietnam, Indonesia, and India.

In addition a multi-pollution controlto the wind project is under construction at our Greenidge coal-fired plant in New York, which will extend the useful life of the project and allow for more economical power dispatch and the generation of additional air emission allowances, both leading to increased revenues.We also secured a 15 year PPA and matching fuel supply agreement, together with construction and long-term financing for a new 670 MW (gross) lignite-fired power plant near Galabovo, Bulgaria. This project is in final engineering and permitting stages and is expected to enter constructionmentioned above, significant 2006 developments in the springCompany’s Alternative Energy business included acquisition of 2006, with start-up planned in two phases in 2009 and 2010. We have also secured a 10 year PPA for a new 150 MW hydro-electric power plant in Panama. AES has begun the engineering and geo-technical work and plans to begin construction in 2007. The plant is scheduled to be operational by 2010.

How Are We Positioning For Growth?

AES’s strategy for growing its business involves utilizing a local management structure operating in local markets. AES believes this is the best method for identifying and capitalizing on growth opportunities. These opportunities generally happen in a variety of ways: (i) through platform expansions, which are investment opportunities in existing businesses or existing country markets; (ii) greenfield development, which typically means development and construction of a new facility; and (iii) privatizations, which involves the transfer of government-owned generation and distribution systems in the private sector. These opportunities are pursued by the Company’s regional organizations. These efforts are supplemented by targeted mergers and acquisitions, which can be on an individual basis or involve


more complex portfolios. These efforts are led by the Company’s corporate Business Development group, acting in conjunction with the appropriate regional organization.

Our active development pipeline of potential growth investments includes opportunities in 38 countries. We have assessed country financial and operating risks in prioritizing those countries in which we would like to make investments, and look to develop a balanced geographic portfolio over time with increased presence in Eastern Europe and Asia in particular. We continue to devote significant resources at both the corporate and business level in support of these opportunities and are funding development related costs which could lead to significant new investments in 2006 and in future years. We signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005 to develop a 1,000 MW coal fired power plant in Vietnam in partnership with a Vietnamese coal producer. These agreements may or may not lead to a firm project, but provide the basis for improving the potential for a successful project, especially if the agreement is entered into on an exclusive basis.

We continue to develop wind generation opportunities, a market we entered early in 2005. We quickly became a significant player in the U.S., with responsibility for the operation of 50073 MW of wind facilities and 1,000 MW of wind projects in development. We also continue to develop stand-alone LNG regasification facilities, and have started development of two new projects on the U.S. east cost during the year. Our proposed Bahamas LNG regasification terminal and 95-mile natural gas pipeline from the terminal to serve south Florida, awaits final Bahamian government approval.

The global power market is extremely large and offers multiple opportunities. In the European Union (“EU”), the market rules require a liberalized competitive wholesale power market as a condition for EU entry. However, there are a number of considerations that may limit the number of available near term opportunities in other markets. First, in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe there is limited need for new capacity, reducing the number of available greenfield opportunities in the most stable markets. Many states in the United States have slowed or reversed their trends towards liberalization, thereby reducing the number of available opportunities. Internationally, some planned privatization programs have been deferred for specific local reasons. In some of the markets outside of the United States that are liberalizing the rules, those rules are being designed such that the risks are too great to justify the level of returns currently available. Hence we have decided to either not participate in those markets or to only do so in a limited manner and wait for a more balanced set of rules or regulations to emerge.

An adjunct part of our growth strategies is portfolio management. High valuations placed on generation assets in particular,California and interests in wind project development pipelines totaling approximately 1,360 MW in Scotland (U.K.), France, and Bulgaria. The Company made its first significant strides in the greenhouse gas emission area, acquiring a 9.9% ownership interest in AgCert International (“AgCert”) for $52 million. AgCert is an Ireland-based company which is noted below asuses agricultural sources to produce greenhouse gas emission offsets under the Kyoto protocol. AES and AgCert also formed a challengejoint venture, AES AgriVerde, to our growth strategies, is also an opportunity to monetize investments or a portion of one or more of our businesses where we see the marketplace placing a significantly higher value on assets than what our own valuation shows. We would likely use proceeds from such portfolio management transaction to fund new growth investments.produce greenhouse gas emission offsets in selected countries in Asia, Europe and North Africa.

The Company expects to fund thesegrowth investments from ouravailable cash, flowsnet cash from operationsoperating activities and/or the proceeds from ourthe issuance of debt, common stock, other securities, asset sales, and asset sales.partner equity contributions. Certain of the Alternative Energy businesses may be considered start-up businesses that will need to be funded internally through cash equity contributions, and may have limited


debt financing opportunities initially. We see sufficient value creating growthattractive investment opportunities that may exceed available cash and net cash flow from operationsoperating activities in future periods.

What Are Our Key Challenges?

There are several challenges we face in achieving our plans for 2006 and beyond.

Global Competition

We have seen increased global competition in our markets. In the United States and Europe multiple new financial sponsors are aggressively acquiring assets. Internationally, a number of new, regionally focused and aggressive competitors have emerged. This increased competition has led to an increase in the prices for assets in both secondary asset sales and privatizations. Prices for materials and engineering and


construction services are increasing, and there is a limited supply of certain key equipment components, especially in the wind generation marketplace, which may limit our ability to secure growth opportunities or achieve acceptable returns.

Foreign Currency Risk

A significant majority of our business portfolio is located outside of the U.S. and therefore usually subject to both currency translation and transaction risk. Our financial position and results of operations have been affected in the past by significant fluctuations in the value of the Argentine peso, Brazilian real and Venezuelan bolivar relative to the U.S. dollar. We hedge certain transaction exposures principally related to debt, and have restructured debt into local currency denomination to minimize risk when possible. Although these actions may have mitigated negative impacts in certain cases, movements within currencies are difficult to predict and continue to have a significant impact on our financial results.

Political Environment

Several of our businesses operate in politically unstable environments. The impact of governmental change and uncertainty impacts foreign currency volatility, our ability to maintain or attract needed financing, as well as our ability to effectively recover costs through routine tariff or regulatory reset proceedings.

Regulatory Risk

Due to the regulated nature of the utilities business, we are subject to regulatory risk related to changes in tariff agreements, and existing laws and provisions. Changes in regulation may impact our future operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Long-term Contracts

Several of our power generation plants operate on a long term contract basis with one or a limited number of contracts related to both the fuel supply and power demand. The remaining periods for these long-term contracts range from 1 to 26 years. The ability of our customers and suppliers to perform under these contracts and our ability to negotiate new contracts upon expiration may have a significant impact on our results of operations in the future.

Performance Improvement

Although we continue to place significant effort on performance improvement initiatives, it remains difficult to measure the financial impact of such initiatives in our financial results, and the reported impact has not been significant in comparison to other important business drivers such as price, volume, and foreign currency movements. In addition, benefits from global sourcing include avoided costs, reduction in actual versus originally estimated capital project costs, and projected savings on assumed spend volume which may or may not actually be achieved. These benefits will not be fully reflected in our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Looking Ahead—What Is Our Key Focus For 2006?

Our focus in 2006 will be in several key areas, starting with safety, by building on two years of improvement in both lower lost workday cases and in reporting of accidents and near misses. Operational excellence will also continue to drive for improvements in both the generation and utility businesses. In addition, management is committed to the remediation of our material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting as well as the continued improvement of the Company’s overall system of internal controls. The Company also will continue to strengthen its training and development programs for AES people at all levels.

71




We will continue to pursue growth opportunities, including platform expansion, greenfield projects, privatization and mergers and acquisitions, as well as our strategic initiatives in alternative energy businesses such as wind generation, LNG, and climate change. As we see an increase in projects under construction, we look to further strengthen our ability to manage and execute multiple construction projects. We want to ensure all the appropriate policies, work procedures, and accountability is in place to execute transactions with proper financial controls and tax and accounting determinations.

To take advantage of these opportunities we intend to leverage our existing strengths and capitalize on favorable market conditions to deliver higher earnings and cash flow and improved credit quality. The catalysts to further growth, consistent with appropriate risk/reward profiles, include both external and internal factors such as:

·       continued electricity demand growth in key markets;

·       attraction of private and public capital for emerging markets;

·       government policies that encourage the development of new areas of opportunity, including renewable energy; and

·       experience with related areas that can lead to business opportunities such as LNG regasification, fossil fuel sourcing, non-power markets, and air emission allowance markets.

Critical Accounting EstimatesCRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

The consolidated financial statements of AES are prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, which requires the use of estimates, judgments, and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the periods presented. AES’s significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K. Critical accounting estimates are described in this section.

An accounting estimate is considered critical if:

·       the estimate requires management to make assumptions about matters that were highly uncertain at the time the estimate was made;

·       different estimates reasonably could have been used; or if changes in

·       the estimate that would have a material impact onof the Company’sestimates and assumptions on financial condition or results of operations are reasonably likely to occur from period to period. operating performance is material.

Management believes that the accounting estimates employed are appropriate and the resulting balances are reasonable; however, actual results could differ from the original estimates, requiring adjustments to these balances in future periods. Listed below are certain significant estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

Revenue Recognition

The revenue of the Utilities businesses is classified as regulated on the consolidated statement of operations. Revenues from the sale of energy are recognized in the period in which the energy is delivered. The calculation of revenues earned but not yet billed is based on the number of days not billed in the month, the estimated amount of energy delivered during those days and the estimated average price per customer class for that month. The revenues from the Generation segment are classified as non-regulated and are recorded based upon output delivered and capacity provided at rates as specified under contract terms or prevailing market rates. Revenues from power sales contracts entered into after 1991 with decreasing scheduled rates are recognized based on the output delivered at the lower of the amount billed or the average rate over the contract term.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

The Company maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated uncollectible accounts receivable. The allowance is based on the Company’s assessment of known delinquent accounts, historical experience, and other currently available evidence of the collectabilitycollectibility and aging of accounts receivable. There is an increased level of exposure related to the Company’s regulated utilities receivables in certain non U.S. locations which are due from local municipalities and other governmental agencies. These customers are often large and normally pay within extended timeframes. The amount of historical experience is limited in some cases due to the recent nature of AES acquisitions subsequent to privatization. In addition, local political and economic factors often play a part in a municipality’s current ability or willingness to pay. The Company monitors these situations closely and continues to refine its reserving policy based on both historical experience and current knowledge of the related political/economic environments.


Income Tax Reserves

We are subject to income taxes in both the United States and numerous foreign jurisdictions. Our worldwide income tax provision requires significant judgment and is based on calculations and assumptions that are subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and other taxing authorities. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are under examination by relevant taxing authorities for various tax years. The Company regularly assesses the potential outcome of these examinations in each of the taxing jurisdictions when determining the adequacy of the provision for income taxes. Tax reserves have been established, which the Company believes to be adequate in relation to the potential for additional assessments. Once established, reserves are adjusted only when there is more information available or when an event occurs necessitating a change to the reserves. While the Company believes that the amount of the tax estimates is reasonable, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of current or future examinations may exceed current reserves in amounts that could be material. A range of these amounts cannot be reasonably estimated at

Through December 31, 2005, as they are primarily unasserted claims.

On October 22, 2004,2006 the American Jobs Creation Act (“the AJCA”) was signed into law. The AJCA includes a deduction of 85% of certain foreign earnings that are repatriated, as defined in the AJCA. The Company conducted an evaluation of the effects of the repatriation provisiondetermined its tax liabilities in accordance with recently issued Treasury Department guidance. As a result,SFAS No. 5 Accounting for Contingencies (“SFAS No. 5”). Effective January 1, 2007 the Company elected not to apply this provision to qualifying earnings repatriationsadopted the provisions set forth in 2005.FIN No. 48 Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes. Under FIN No. 48, positions taken on the Company’s income tax return which satisfy a more-likely-than-not threshold will be recognized in the financial statements.

Long-Lived Assets

In accordance with SFAS No. 144 “AccountingAccounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, (“SFAS No. 144”), we periodically review the carrying value of our long-lived assets held and used, other than goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives, and assets to be disposed of when circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of such assets may not be recoverable or the assets meet the held for sale criteria under SFAS No. 144. These events or circumstances may include the relative pricing of wholesale electricity by region and the anticipated demand and cost of fuel. If the carrying amount is not recoverable, an impairment charge is recorded for the amount by which the carrying value of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value. For regulated assets, an impairment charge could be offset by the establishment of a regulatory asset, if rate recovery was probable. For non-regulated assets, an impairment charge would be recorded as a charge against earnings.

The fair value of an asset is the amount at which that asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than a forced or liquidation sale. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and are used as the basis for measurement, if available. In the absence of quoted market prices for identical or similar assets in active markets, fair value is estimated using various internal and external valuation methods including cash flow projections or other indicators of fair value such as bids received, comparable sales or independent appraisals.

In connection with the periodic evaluation of long-lived assets in accordance with the requirements of SFAS No. 144, the fair value of the asset can vary if different estimates and assumptions would have been used in our applied valuation techniques. In cases of impairment described in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, we made our best estimate of fair value using valuation methods based on the most current information at that time.information. We have been in the process of divesting certain assets and their sales values can vary from the recorded fair value as described in Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K. Fluctuations in realized sales proceeds versus the estimated fair value of the asset are generally due to a variety of factors including differences in subsequent market conditions, the level of bidder interest, timing and terms of the transactions, and management’s analysis of the benefits of the transaction.


Goodwill

We reviewtest goodwill for impairment annually and whenever events or circumstances make it more likely than not that impairment may have occurred, such as a significant adverse change in the carrying valuebusiness climate or a decision to sell or dispose all or a portion of oura business unit. Determining whether an impairment has occurred requires valuation of the respective business unit, which we estimate using a discounted cash flow method. In applying this methodology, we rely on a number of factors, including actual operating results, future business plans, economic projections and market data.

If this analysis indicates goodwill annually duringis impaired, measuring the fourth quarter. We also review the carrying value of our goodwill periodically when events and circumstances warrant suchimpairment requires a review. This review is performed using estimates of fair value estimate of each identified tangible and includes discounted futureintangible asset. In this case, we supplement the cash flows. If the carrying value of goodwill is considered impaired, an impairment charge is recorded.flow approach discussed above with independent appraisals, as appropriate.

Pension and Other Postretirement Obligations

Certain of our foreign and domestic subsidiaries maintain defined benefit pension plans which we refer to as (“the pension plans, or the plans,plan”) covering substantially all of their respective employees. Pension benefits are generally based on years of credited service, age of the participant and average earnings. Of the twenty one defined benefit pension plans existing at December 31, 2005, two exist at domestic subsidiaries and the remainder exists at foreign subsidiaries. The measurement of our pension obligations, costs and liabilities is dependent on a variety of assumptions used by our actuaries. These assumptions include estimates of the present value of projected future pension payments to all plan participants, taking into consideration the likelihood of potential future events such as salary increases and demographic experience. These assumptions may have an effect on the amount and timing of future contributions. The plan trusteeactuary conducts an independent valuation of the fair value of pension plan assets.

The assumptions used in developing the required estimates include the following key factors:

·       Discount ratesrates;

·       Salary growthgrowth;

·       Retirement ratesrates;

·       InflationInflation;

·       Expected return on plan assetsassets; and

·       Mortality ratesrates.

The effects of actual results differing from our assumptions are accumulated and amortized over future periods and, therefore, generally affect our recognized expense in such future periods.

Sensitivity of our pension funded status and stockholders’ equity to the indicated increase or decrease in the discount rate assumption is shown below. Although not an estimate, we’ve also included sensitivity around the actual return on pension assets. Note that these sensitivities may be asymmetric, and are specific to the base conditions at year-end 2005.2006. They also may not be additive, so the impact of changing multiple factors simultaneously cannot be calculated by combining the individual sensitivities shown. The December 31, 20052006 funded status is affected by December 31, 20052006 assumptions. Pension expense for 20052006 is affected by December 31, 2004 assumptions.2005 assumptions. The impact on our funded status, equity and U.S. pension expense from a one percentage point change in these assumptions is shown in the table below (in millions):

Increase of 1% in the discount rate

 

$

(16

)

 

$

(7

)

Decrease of 1% in the discount rate

 

$

23

 

 

$

22

 

Increase of 1% in the long-term rate of return on plan assets

 

$

(19

)

 

$

(23

)

Decrease of 1% in the long-term rate of return on plan assets

 

$

19

 

 

$

23

 

 


Regulatory Assets and Liabilities

The Company accounts for certain of its regulated operations under the provisions of SFAS No. 71, “AccountingAccounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation.”Regulation (“SFAS No. 71”). As a result, AES records assets and liabilities that result from the regulated ratemaking process that would not be recorded under GAAP for non-


regulatednon-regulated entities. Regulatory assets generally represent incurred costs that have been deferred because such costs are probable of future recovery in customer rates. Regulatory liabilities generally represent obligations to make refunds to customers for previous collections for costs that are not likely to be incurred.incurred or included in future rate initiatives. Management continually assesses whether the regulatory assets are probable of future recovery by considering factors such as applicable regulatory changes, recent rate orders applicable to other regulated entities and the status of any pending or potential deregulation legislation. If future recovery of costs ceases to be probable, the asset write-offs would be required to be recognized in operating income.

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

We enter into various derivative transactions in order to hedge our exposure to certain market risks. We primarily use derivative instruments to manage our interest rate, commodity, and foreign currency exposures. We do not enter into derivative transactions for trading purposes.

Under SFAS No. 133, “AccountingAccounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities as amended(“SFAS No. 133”), we recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the balance sheet and measure those instruments at fair value. Changes in fair value of derivatives are recognized in earnings unless specific hedge criteria are met. Income and expense related to derivative instruments are recorded in the same category as generated by the underlying asset or liability.

SFAS No. 133 enables companies to designate qualifying derivatives as hedging instruments based on the exposure being hedged. These hedge designations include fair value hedges and cash flow hedges. Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is highly effective as, and is designated and qualifies as a fair value hedge, are recognized in earnings as offsets to the changes in fair value of the exposure being hedged. Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is highly effective as, and is designated as and qualifies as a cash flow hedge, are deferred in accumulated other comprehensive income and are recognized into earnings as the hedged transactions occur. Any ineffectiveness is recognized in earnings immediately. For all hedge contracts, the Company provides formal documentation of the hedge and effectiveness testing in accordance with SFAS No. 133. If we deem that the derivative is not highly effective as a hedge, hedge accounting will be discontinued prospectively.

As a result of uncertainty, complexity and judgment, accounting estimates related to derivative accounting could result in material changes to our financial statements under different conditions or utilizing different assumptions. As a part of accounting for these derivatives, we make estimates concerning volatilities, market liquidity, future commodity prices, interest rates, credit ratings, and exchange rates.

AES generally uses quoted exchange prices to the extent they are available to determine the fair value of derivatives. In the absence of actively quoted market prices, we seek indicative price information from external sources, including broker quotes and industry publications. If pricing information from external sources is not available, AES will estimate prices, when possible, based on available historical and near-term future price information as well as utilizing statistical methods. When external valuation models are not available, the company utilizes internal models for valuation. For individual contracts, the use of different valuation models or assumptions could have a material effect on the calculated fair value.

For cash flow hedges95




Consolidated Results of forecasted transactions, AES must estimate the future cash flows represented by the forecasted transactions, as well as evaluate the probability of occurrence and timing of such transactions. Changes in conditions or the occurrence of unforeseen events could require discontinuance of hedge accounting or could affect the timing for the reclassification of gains or losses on cash flow hedges from accumulated other comprehensive loss (“AOCI”) into earnings.


OperationsNEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

Consolidation of Variable Interest EntitiesOverview

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

Results of operations

 

 

 

2006

 

2005
Restated

 

2004 
Restated

 

$ change
2006 vs. 2005

 

$ change
2005 vs. 2004

 

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

Revenue:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latin America Generation

 

$

2,616

 

 

$

2,145

 

 

 

$

1,584

 

 

 

$

471

 

 

 

$

561

 

 

Latin America Utilities

 

5,246

 

 

4,796

 

 

 

3,824

 

 

 

450

 

 

 

972

 

 

North America Generation

 

1,900

 

 

1,809

 

 

 

1,704

 

 

 

91

 

 

 

105

 

 

North America Utilities

 

1,032

 

 

951

 

 

 

885

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

66

 

 

Europe & Africa Generation

 

852

 

 

735

 

 

 

697

 

 

 

117

 

 

 

38

 

 

Europe & Africa Utilities

 

571

 

 

505

 

 

 

463

 

 

 

66

 

 

 

42

 

 

Middle East & Asia Generation

 

840

 

 

642

 

 

 

570

 

 

 

198

 

 

 

72

 

 

Corporate and Other(1)

 

(758

)

 

(562

)

 

 

(335

)

 

 

(196

)

 

 

(227

)

 

Total Revenue

 

$

12,299

 

 

$

11,021

 

 

 

$

9,392

 

 

 

$

1,278

 

 

 

$

1,629

 

 

Gross Margin:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latin America Generation

 

$

1,054

 

 

$

857

 

 

 

$

616

 

 

 

$

197

 

 

 

$

241

 

 

Latin America Utilities

 

1,071

 

 

834

 

 

 

754

 

 

 

237

 

 

 

80

 

 

North America Generation

 

556

 

 

590

 

 

 

590

 

 

 

(34

)

 

 

 

 

North America Utilities

 

277

 

 

301

 

 

 

303

 

 

 

(24

)

 

 

(2

)

 

Europe & Africa Generation

 

249

 

 

186

 

 

 

182

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

4

 

 

Europe & Africa Utilities

 

112

 

 

112

 

 

 

60

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

 

 

Middle East & Asia Generation

 

255

 

 

284

 

 

 

252

 

 

 

(29

)

 

 

32

 

 

Total Corporate and Other(2)

 

(248

)

 

(190

)

 

 

(147

)

 

 

(58

)

 

 

(43

)

 

Interest expense

 

(1,802

)

 

(1,893

)

 

 

(1,920

)

 

 

91

 

 

 

27

 

 

Interest income

 

443

 

 

395

 

 

 

283

 

 

 

48

 

 

 

112

 

 

Other income

 

115

 

 

171

 

 

 

157

 

 

 

(56

)

 

 

14

 

 

Other expense

 

(308

)

 

(132

)

 

 

(123

)

 

 

(176

)

 

 

(9

)

 

Gain (loss) on sale of investments

 

98

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

 

98

 

 

 

1

 

 

Loss on sale of subsidiary stock

 

(539

)

 

 

 

 

(24

)

 

 

(539

)

 

 

24

 

 

Asset impairment expense

 

(29

)

 

(16

)

 

 

(50

)

 

 

(13

)

 

 

34

 

 

Foreign currency transaction losses on net monetary position

 

(77

)

 

(101

)

 

 

(136

)

 

 

24

 

 

 

35

 

 

Equity in earnings of affiliates

 

72

 

 

70

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

7

 

 

Income tax expense

 

(403

)

 

(525

)

 

 

(380

)

 

 

122

 

 

 

(145

)

 

Minority interest expense

 

(610

)

 

(369

)

 

 

(211

)

 

 

(241

)

 

 

(158

)

 

Income from continuing operations

 

286

 

 

574

 

 

 

268

 

 

 

(288

)

 

 

306

 

 

(Loss) income from operations of discontinued businesses

 

(46

)

 

34

 

 

 

32

 

 

 

(80

)

 

 

2

 

 

Extraordinary items

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

Cumulative effect of accounting change

 

 

 

(3

)

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

(3

)

 

Net income

 

$

261

 

 

$

605

 

 

 

$

300

 

 

 

$

(344

)

 

 

$

305

 

 

In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Financial Interpretation No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities—An Interpretation of ARB No. 51” (“FIN 46” or “Interpretation”). FIN 46 is an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin 51 “Consolidated Financial Statements,” and addresses consolidation by business enterprises of variable interest entities (“VIE”). The primary objective of the Interpretation is to provide guidance on the identification of and financial reporting for, entities over which control is achieved through means other than voting rights; such entities are known as VIEs. The Interpretation requires an enterprise to consolidate a VIE if that enterprise has a variable interest that will absorb a majority of the entity’s expected losses if they occur, receive a majority of the entity’s expected residual returns if they occur or both. An enterprise shall consider the rights and obligations conveyed by its variable interests in making this determination. On December 24, 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (Revised 2003) Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46(R)” or “Revised Interpretation”), which partially deferred the effective date of FIN 46 for certain entities and makes other changes to FIN 46, including a more complete definition of variable interest and an exemption for many entities defined as businesses. The Company applied FIN 46 in its financial statements relating to its interest in variable interest entities or potential variable interest entities as of December 31, 2003, and applied FIN 46(R) as of March 31, 2004. The application of FIN 46(R) did not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements for any quarter through December 31, 2004.

In March 2005, the FASB issued Staff Position (“FSP”) No. FIN 46(R)-5, “Implicit Variable Interests under FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.” This FSP clarifies that when applying the variable interest consolidation model, a reporting enterprise should consider whether it holds an implicit variable interest in a variable interest entity (“VIE”) or potential VIE. FSP No. FIN 46(R)-5 became effective as of April 1, 2005. Upon the adoption of FSP No. FIN 46(R)-5, the Company did not identify any potential or implicit VIEs.

Share-Based Payment

In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued a revised Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 123, “Share-Based Payment.” SFAS 123R eliminates the intrinsic value method as an alternative method of accounting for stock-based awards under Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) No. 25 by requiring that all share-based payments to employees, including grants of stock options for all outstanding years, be recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values. It also revises the fair-value based method of accounting for share-based payment liabilities, forfeitures and modifications of stock-based awards and clarifies the guidance under SFAS No. 123 related to measurement of fair value, classifying an award as equity or as a liability and attributing compensation to reporting periods. In addition, SFAS No. 123R amends SFAS No. 95, “Statement of Cash Flows,” to require that excess tax benefits be reported as a financing cash flow rather than as an operating cash flow.

Effective January 1, 2003, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provision of SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS No. 148, prospectively to all employee awards granted, modified or settled after January 1, 2003. We adopted SFAS No. 123R and related guidance on January 1, 2006, using the modified prospective transition method. Under this transition method, compensation cost will be recognized (a) based on the requirements of SFAS No. 123R for all share-based awards granted subsequent to January 1, 2006 and (b) based on the original provisions of SFAS No. 123 for all awards granted prior to January 1, 2006, but not vested as of this date. Results for prior periods will not be restated. Management is currently evaluating the effect of the adoption of SFAS No. 123R under the modified prospective application transition method, but does not expect the adoption to have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations

In March 2005, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation (“FIN”) No. 47 “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143,” which clarifies the term “conditional asset retirement obligation” as used in SFAS No. 143 “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” Specifically, FIN 47 provides that an asset retirement obligation is conditional when the timing and/or method of settling the obligation is conditioned on a future event. Accordingly, an entity is required to recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Uncertainty about the timing and/or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation should be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information exists. This interpretation also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation. FIN 47 is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005.

The Company’s asset retirement obligations covered by FIN 47 primarily include conditional obligations to demolish assets or return assets in good working condition at the end of the contractual or concession term, and for the removal of equipment containing asbestos and other contaminants. As of December 31, 2005, the Company recorded additional asset retirement obligations in the amount of $18 million as a result of the implementation of FIN 47. The cumulative effect of the initial application of this Interpretation was recognized as a change in accounting principle in the amount of $2 million, net of income tax benefit of $1 million.

The pro forma net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share resulting from the adoption of FIN 47 for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, is not materially different from the actual amounts reported in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for those periods. Had FIN 47 been applied during all periods presented, the asset retirement obligations at December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2004 would have been approximately $14 million and $15 million, respectively.


RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

 

For The Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

$ change 2005
vs. 2004

 

$ change 2004
vs. 2003

 

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

Gross Margin:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulated utilities

 

$

1,237

 

$

1,116

 

$

976

 

 

$

121

 

 

 

$

140

 

 

Contract generation

 

1,603

 

1,428

 

1,262

 

 

175

 

 

 

166

 

 

Competitive supply

 

338

 

238

 

221

 

 

100

 

 

 

17

 

 

Total gross margin

 

3,178

 

2,782

 

2,459

 

 

396

 

 

 

323

 

 

General and administrative expenses(1)

 

(221

)

(182

)

(157

)

 

(39

)

 

 

(25

)

 

Interest expense

 

(1,896

)

(1,932

)

(1,984

)

 

36

 

 

 

52

 

 

Interest income

 

391

 

282

 

280

 

 

109

 

 

 

2

 

 

Other income, net

 

19

 

12

 

65

 

 

7

 

 

 

(53

)

 

Loss on sale of investments, asset and goodwill impairment expense

 

 

(45

)

(212

)

 

45

 

 

 

167

 

 

Foreign currency transaction (losses) gains on net monetary position

 

(89

)

(165

)

99

 

 

76

 

 

 

(264

)

 

Equity in earnings (loss) of affiliates

 

76

 

70

 

94

 

 

6

 

 

 

(24

)

 

Income tax expense

 

(465

)

(359

)

(211

)

 

(106

)

 

 

(148

)

 

Minority interest (expense) income

 

(361

)

(199

)

(139

)

 

(162

)

 

 

(60

)

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

632

 

264

 

294

 

 

368

 

 

 

(30

)

 

Income (loss) from operations of discontinued businesses

 

 

34

 

(787

)

 

(34

)

 

 

821

 

 

Cumulative effect of accounting change

 

(2

)

 

41

 

 

(2

)

 

 

(41

)

 

Net income (loss)

 

$

630

 

$

298

 

$

(452

)

 

$

332

 

 

 

$

750

 

 

PER SHARE DATA:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic income (loss) per share from continuing operations

 

$

0.96

 

$

0.41

 

$

0.49

 

 

$

0.55

 

 

 

$

(0.08

)

 

Diluted income (loss) per share from continuing operations

 

$

0.95

 

$

0.41

 

$

0.49

 

 

$

0.54

 

 

 

$

(0.08

)

 

 

 

December 31,

 

Per share data:

 

 

 

2006

 

2005
Restated

 

2004 
Restated

 

$ change
2006 vs. 2005

 

$ change
2005 vs. 2004

 

Basic income per share from continuing operations

 

$

0.44

 

$

0.89

 

$

0.42

 

 

$

(0.45

)

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

Diluted income per share from continuing operations

 

$

0.43

 

$

0.87

 

$

0.41

 

 

$

(0.44

)

 

 

$

0.46

 

 


(1)           GeneralCorporate and Other includes revenues from Alternative Energy and intersegment eliminations of revenues related to transfers of electricity from Tiete (generation) to Eletropaulo (utility).

(2)Total Corporate and Other expenses include corporate general and administrative expenses areas well as certain inter-segment eliminations, primarily corporate charges for management fees and business development expenses.

78




Overviewself insurance premiums.

Revenue

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Regulated Utilities

 

$

5,737

 

 

52%

 

 

 

$

4,897

 

 

 

52%

 

 

 

$

4,425

 

 

 

53%

 

 

Contract Generation

 

4,137

 

 

37%

 

 

 

3,546

 

 

 

37%

 

 

 

3,108

 

 

 

37%

 

 

Competitive Supply

 

1,212

 

 

11%

 

 

 

1,020

 

 

 

11%

 

 

 

880

 

 

 

10%

 

 

Non-Regulated

 

5,349

 

 

48%

 

 

 

4,566

 

 

 

48%

 

 

 

3,988

 

 

 

47%

 

 

Total

 

$

11,086

 

 

100%

 

 

 

$

9,463

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

$

8,413

 

 

 

100%

 

 

Revenues increased approximately $1.6 billion, or 17%, to $11.1 billion in 2005 from $9.5 billion in 2004, primarily in the Regulated Utilities and Contract Generation segments. Regulated utilities revenues increased $840 million, or 17%, mostly due to favorable exchange rates at our Brazilian utilities while contract generation revenues increased $591 million, or 17%, due to increased contract pricing and favorable foreign exchange rates at our businesses in Brazil, Chile and Mexico.  Excluding the estimated impacts of foreign currency translation effect, revenues would have increased approximately 10% from 2004 to 2005. Excluding businesses that commenced commercial operations in 2005 or 2004, the revenue increase would remain at 17% in 2005.

Revenues increased approximately $1.1 billion, or 12%, to $9.5 billion in 2004 from $8.4 billion in 2003, primarily in the Regulated Utilities and Contract Generation segments. Regulated utilities revenues increased $472 million, or 11%, mostly due to increased tariffs at our Latin American utilities while contract generation revenues increased $438 million, or 14%, mainly due to higher contract prices and new projects coming on line in Qatar, Oman and the Dominican Republic. Excluding the estimated impacts of foreign currency translation effect, revenues would have increased approximately 11% from 2003 to 2004. Excluding businesses that commenced commercial operations in 2004 or 2003, revenues increased 11% to $9.3 billion in 2004.

Gross Margin

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Regulated Utilities

 

 

$

1,237

 

 

 

39%

 

 

 

$

1,116

 

 

 

40%

 

 

 

$

976

 

 

 

40%

 

 

Contract Generation

 

 

1,603

 

 

 

50%

 

 

 

1,428

 

 

 

51%

 

 

 

1,262

 

 

 

51%

 

 

Competitive Supply

 

 

338

 

 

 

11%

 

 

 

238

 

 

 

9%

 

 

 

221

 

 

 

9%

 

 

Non-Regulated

 

 

1,941

 

 

 

61%

 

 

 

1,666

 

 

 

60%

 

 

 

1,483

 

 

 

60%

 

 

Total

 

 

$

3,178

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

$

2,782

 

 

 

100%

 

 

 

$

2,459

 

 

 

100%

 

 

Gross Margin as a % of Revenue

 

 

28.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gross margin increased $396 million, or 14%, to $3.2 billion in 2005 from $2.8 billion in 2004, with gross margin improvements in all segments during 2005 compared to 2004. Contract generation gross margin increased $175 million, or 12%, due to higher contract pricing while regulated utilities gross margin increased $121 million, or 11%, as a result of higher overall revenues and lower fixed expenses. Competitive supply gross margin increased $100 million, or 42%, due to higher prices and the sale of environmental allowances. Excluding businesses that commenced commercial operations in 2005 or 2004,


the gross margin increase in 2005 would remain at 14%. Gross margin as a percentage of revenues decreased to 28.7% in 2005 from 29.4% in 2004 due to higher fuel costs throughout most of our businesses, increased receivable reserves in our Brazilian utilities and higher unrecovered purchased electricity prices in our regulated utilities.

Gross margin increased $323 million, or 13%, to $2.8 billion in 2004 from $2.5 billion in 2003, as gross margin for all segments improved in 2004 compared to 2003. Contract generation gross margin increased $166 million, or 13%, due to higher contract pricing and new projects coming on line while regulated utilities gross margin increased $140 million, or 14%, as a result of increased tariffs. Competitive supply gross margin increased $17 million, or 8%, due to higher prices slightly offset by higher fuel costs. Excluding businesses that commenced commercial operations in 2004 or 2003, gross margin increased 10% to $2.7 billion in 2004. Gross margin as a percentage of revenues increased to 29.4% in 2004 from 29.2% in 2003.

Segment Analysis

RegulatedLatin America

The following table summarizes revenue for our Generation and Utilities Revenuesegments in Latin America for the periods indicated (in millions):

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

North America

 

 

$

951

 

 

 

9%

 

 

 

$

884

 

 

 

9%

 

 

 

$

832

 

 

 

10%

 

 

Latin America

 

 

4,276

 

 

 

38%

 

 

 

3,550

 

 

 

38%

 

 

 

3,219

 

 

 

38%

 

 

EMEA

 

 

510

 

 

 

5%

 

 

 

463

 

 

 

5%

 

 

 

374

 

 

 

5%

 

 

Total

 

 

$

5,737

 

 

 

52%

 

 

 

$

4,897

 

 

 

52%

 

 

 

$

4,425

 

 

 

53%

 

 

Latin America

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Latin America Generation

 

 

$

2,616

 

 

 

21

%

 

 

$

2,145

 

 

 

19

%

 

 

$

1,584

 

 

 

17

%

 

Latin America Utilities

 

 

5,246

 

 

 

43

%

 

 

4,796

 

 

 

44

%

 

 

3,824

 

 

 

41

%

 

 

Regulated utilities revenuesFiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 Revenue

Generation revenue increased $840$471 million, or 17%22%, to $5.7 billion in 2005 from $4.9 billion in 2004, primarily due to higher revenuesincreased intercompany volume sales and contract energy prices from Tiete to Eletropaulo in our Latin America utilities, which experiencedBrazil, the acquisition of the controlling shares of Itabo (which resulted in full consolidation of Itabo beginning in June 2006) in the Dominican Republic and an increase in revenues of $726spot market and contract energy prices at Gener in Chile and Alicura and Parana in Argentina.

Utilities revenue increased $450 million, or 20%9%, in 2005. Excluding the estimated impacts ofdue to favorable foreign currency translation regulated utilities revenues would haveimpacts, increased 5%demand at EDC in Venezuela from new customers, increased demand at Eletropaulo primarily from increased volume for industrial and commercial customers due to improved economic conditions and increased tariff rates at CAESS/EEO in El Salvador.

Fiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Revenue

Generation revenue increased $561 million, or 35% due to 2005. This increaseincreased intercompany volume sales and contract energy prices from Tiete to Eletropaulo in Latin America utilities revenues wasBrazil, higher contract energy prices at Gener in Chile and increased volume at Alicura in Argentina and Gener.

Utilities revenue increased $972 million, or 25% due to favorable exchange rates at AES Eletropaulo and Sul in Brazil, only partially offset by the negative impacts of foreign currency remeasurement at EDC in Venezuela. The Brazilian real appreciated 12% in 2005 whiletranslation impacts, the Venezuelan bolivar devalued almost 11% for the same period. Recognitionrecognition of a retroactive tariff increase as well as an increase in the average customer tariff due to a rate increase at AES Eletropaulo in Brazil in 2005.

Fiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 also contributed toGross Margin

The following table summarizes gross margin for the year over year revenue increaseGeneration and Utilities segments in Latin America utilities revenues.for the periods indicated (in millions):

Latin America

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Latin America Generation

 

 

$

1,054

 

 

 

29

%

 

 

$

857

 

 

 

27

%

 

 

$

616

 

 

 

22

%

 

Latin America Utilities

 

 

1,071

 

 

 

29

%

 

 

834

 

 

 

26

%

 

 

754

 

 

 

27

%

 

Regulated utilities revenuesGeneration gross margin increased $472$197 million, or 11%23%, to $4.9 billion in 2004 from $4.4 billion in 2003, primarily due to higher revenuesincreased intercompany volume sales and contract energy prices from Tiete to Eletropaulo in our Latin America utilities, which experiencedBrazil, an increase in revenuesspot market and contract energy prices at Gener in Chile and the acquisition of $331 million, or 10%,the controlling shares of Itabo in 2004. Excluding the estimated impacts ofDominican Republic, partially offset by higher purchased electricity and fuel prices at Uruguaiana in Brazil and higher transmission costs, regulator fees and unfavorable foreign currency translation, regulated utilities revenues would have increased 10% from 2003 to 2004. This increase in Latin America utilities revenues was due to increased tariffs and favorable exchange rates at AESTiete in Brazil.


Utilities gross margin increased $237 million, or 28%, due to the recording of $192 million of gross bad debts reserve in the second quarter of 2005 related to the collectibility of certain municipal receivables at Eletropaulo and Sul in Brazil, that werefavorable foreign exchange rates in Eletropaulo, a decrease in purchased electricity volume and prices at Eletropaulo, and favorable tariff rates at EDC in Venezuela.  The increase in Utilities gross margin was partially offset by lower sales volume. The average customer tariffthe increase for legal reserves at AES Eletropaulo and certain contingencies at EDC.

Fiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Gross Margin

Generation gross margin increased in 2004 due to both a rate increase and an increase in residential consumption, although overall consumption decreased by 1%. Revenues at our Venezuelan subsidiary, EDC, also increased$241 million, or 39%, due to higher tariffs that werecontract energy prices at Gener in Chile, partially offset substantially by increased purchased electricity and fuel volumes at Andres in the Dominican Republic, unfavorable foreign exchange rates at Gener and reduced sales volumes.


Regulated Utilities Gross Margin

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

North America

 

 

$

305

 

 

 

10%

 

 

 

$

304

 

 

 

11%

 

 

 

$

282

 

 

 

11%

 

 

Latin America

 

 

816

 

 

 

25%

 

 

 

754

 

 

 

27%

 

 

 

653

 

 

 

27%

 

 

EMEA

 

 

116

 

 

 

4%

 

 

 

58

 

 

 

2%

 

 

 

41

 

 

 

2%

 

 

Total

 

 

$

1,237

 

 

 

39%

 

 

 

$

1,116

 

 

 

40%

 

 

 

$

976

 

 

 

40%

 

 

Regulated Utilities Gross Margin as a  % of Regulated Utilities Revenue

 

 

21.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tiete in Brazil and higher transmission costs at Gener.

Regulated utilitiesUtilities gross margin increased $121$80 million, or 11%, to $1.2 billion in 2005 from $1.1 billion in 2004, primarily due to higher gross margins in our Latin America and EMEA utilities. Gross margins in our Latin America utilities increased $62 million, or 8%, primarily as a result of higher overall revenues and favorable foreign currency translation impactsexchange rates at AES Eletropaulo and Sul in Brazil combined with increased volume at EDC in Venezuela. The increase in Utilities gross margin was partially offset by the recording of $192 million of gross bad debts reserve in the second quarter of 2005 related to the collectabilitycollectibility of certain municipal receivables at Eletropaulo and Sul in Brazil, increased transmissions costs and legal reserves at Eletropaulo.

North America

The following table summarizes revenue for our utilitiesGeneration and Utilities segments in Brazil. Gross margins in our EMEA utilitiesNorth America for the periods indicated (in millions):

North America

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

North America Generation

 

 

$

1,900

 

 

 

15

%

 

 

$

1,809

 

 

 

16

%

 

 

$

1,704

 

 

 

18

%

 

North America Utilities

 

 

1,032

 

 

 

8

%

 

 

951

 

 

 

9

%

 

 

885

 

 

 

9

%

 

Fiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 Revenue

Generation revenue increased $58$91 million, or 100%5%, as AES SONEL in Cameroon also showed positive results primarily due to higher revenues, better demandspot market prices of $75 million in New York, increased charge rates for fuel and lower fixed expenses. Gross margin for all regulated utilities as a percentvariable maintenance costs of revenue decreased to 21.6%$20 million in 2005 compared to 22.8%Puerto Rico, increased tariff rates and volume of $11 million at Deepwater in 2004Texas primarily due to a new contract, a $9 million increase in sales of emission allowances in New York, higher purchased electricity costsvolumes at Thames in all regionsConnecticut, and the recording of the gross bad debts reserve mentioned earlierimproved operating performance at our utilitiesSouthland in Brazil.California. These increases were partially offset by lower volume and an outage in 2006 at Merida III in Mexico.

Regulated utilities gross marginUtilities revenue increased $140$81 million, or 14%9%, to $1.1 billion in 2004 from $1.0 billion in 2003, primarily due to higher gross marginspricing at IPL in our Latin America utilities, which experiencedIndiana due to the pass through of higher fuel costs and an increase in gross margincosts recovered from a NOx compliance construction program, slightly offset by a decrease in quantity of $101kWh sold, due to a 20% decrease in the cooling degree days and a 10% decrease in heating degree days compared to 2005.


Fiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Revenue

Generation revenue increased $105 million, or 15%6%, in 2004. The increase in Latin America utilities gross margin was due to the increased tariffs and the favorable effect of exchange rates on revenues at AES Eletropaulo in Brazil partially offset by increased costs related to purchased electricity and bad debt provisions. Gross margin decreased at EDC in Venezuela due to the unfavorable effect of exchange rates and lower demand coupled with higher fixed costs in 2004 compared to 2003. Gross margin for regulated utilities as a percent of revenue increased slightly to 22.8% in 2004 compared to 22.1% in 2003 primarily due to increased tariffs in Latin America.

Contract Generation Revenue

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

North America

 

 

$

1,281

 

 

 

11%

 

 

 

$

1,258

 

 

 

13%

 

 

 

$

1,221

 

 

 

15%

 

 

Latin America

 

 

1,755

 

 

 

16%

 

 

 

1,286

 

 

 

14%

 

 

 

1,070

 

 

 

13%

 

 

EMEA

 

 

956

 

 

 

9%

 

 

 

882

 

 

 

9%

 

 

 

699

 

 

 

8%

 

 

Asia

 

 

145

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

118

 

 

 

1%

 

 

Total

 

 

$

4,137

 

 

 

37%

 

 

 

$

3,546

 

 

 

37%

 

 

 

$

3,108

 

 

 

37%

 

 

Contract generation revenues increased $591 million, or 17%, to $4.1 billion in 2005 from $3.5 billion in 2004 primarily due to increases at our Latin America and EMEA businesses, while North America and Asia showed slight improvements. Excluding the estimated impacts of foreign currency translation,


revenues would have increased approximately 15% from 2004 to 2005. The increase in Latin America is primarily due to higher contract prices at Tiete (a group of hydro-electric plants providing electricity primarily to AES Eletropaulo)$43 million and Uruguaiana in Brazil, Gener in Chile and Los Minaan increase in the Dominican Republic. In addition, the Latin America region was impacted by favorable foreign currency translation in Brazil and Chile. Andres in the Dominican Republic experienced increased volume in addition to higher prices. The increase in EMEA revenues is primarily due to higher contract prices at Tisza in Hungary and a full yearsale of operations at Ras Laffan in Qatar. The increase in revenues in Asia is due to higher contract prices and availability at Kelanitissa in Sri Lanka. The increase in North America revenues is primarily due to higher contract prices and favorable foreign currency impacts at Merida in Mexico and higher pricesemission allowances at our business in New York, higher contract prices of $33 million at Merida III in Mexico, higher prices of $24 million in Puerto Rico, along with the acquisitionand favorable currency impacts of the SeaWest wind business$9 million in the first quarter of 2005.Mexico. These increases arewere partially offset by a decrease in contract price at Shady Point in Oklahoma and outages at Thames in Connecticut.

Contract generation revenuesUtilities revenue increased $438$66 million, or 14%7%, to $3.5 billion in 2004 from $3.1 billion in 2003 primarily due to increase in tariffs and volume at IPL in Indiana. The volume increase was primarily due to a 37% increase in cooling degree days compared to 2004, as well as an increased customer base of approximately 4,300 customers or 1% during 2005.

Fiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 Gross Margin

The following table summarizes gross margin for the Generation and Utilities segments in North America for the periods indicated (in millions):

North America

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

North America Generation

 

 

$

556

 

 

 

15

%

 

 

$

590

 

 

 

18

%

 

 

$

590

 

 

 

23

%

 

North America Utilities

 

 

277

 

 

 

8

%

 

 

301

 

 

 

9

%

 

 

303

 

 

 

11

%

 

Generation’s gross margin decreased $34 million, or 6%, primarily due to outages in 2006 at Warrior Run in Maryland, Hawaii, Ironwood in Pennsylvania and several plants in New York, as well as a scheduled reduction in pricing of the power purchase agreements for our Hawaii plant. The decrease was partly off set by higher energy margins and sales of emission allowances by $9 million in New York and increased contract prices at Deepwater in Texas.

Utilities gross margin decreased $24 million, or 8%, primarily due to higher maintenance costs at IPL in Indiana due to a scheduled outage on one of its large based load coal fired units that coincided with a project to enhance environmental emission technology to significantly reduce emissions as well as increased emissions allowances.

Fiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Gross Margin

Generation gross margin was flat at $590 million with an increase in sale of emissions allowances in New York of $43 million, an increase in contract prices at Deepwater in Texas and higher volume at Warrior Run in Maryland and our Hawaii plant. These increases were partly offset by a decrease in contract pricing at Shady Point in Oklahoma, outages incurred at Thames in Connecticut, and lower dispatch at Southland in California.

Utilities gross margin decreased $2 million or 1% primarily due to IPL in Indiana having produced a greater portion of their electricity during 2005 using peaking unit resources as a result of higher electricity demand caused by higher average temperatures in the third quarter of 2005 as well as an increase in market price of purchased power.


Europe & Africa

The following table summarizes revenue for the Generation and Utilities segments in Europe & Africa for the periods indicated (in millions):

Europe & Africa

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Europe/Africa Generation

 

 

$

852

 

 

 

7

%

 

 

$

735

 

 

 

7

%

 

 

$

697

 

 

 

7

%

 

Europe/Africa Utilities

 

 

571

 

 

 

5

%

 

 

505

 

 

 

5

%

 

 

463

 

 

 

5

%

 

Fiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 Revenue

Generation revenue increased $117 million, or 16%, primarily due to increased volume sales and contract energy prices at Tisza II in Hungary and at Ekibastuz in Kazakhstan, increased sales in Kazakhstan through our centralized trading office in Altai, and CO2 emission allowance sales by Tisza II in Hungary and Bohemia in the Czech Republic.

Utilities revenue increased $66 million, or 13%, primarily due to increased demand and tariff rates at Sonel in Cameroon and at our Latin Americabusinesses in the Ukraine.

Fiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Revenue

Generation revenue increased $38 million, or 5%, primarily due to increased volume sales and EMEA businesses.contract energy prices at both Borsod and Tisza II in Hungary and at Ekibastuz in Kazakhstan and increased sales in Kazakhstan through our centralized trading office in Altai.

Utilities revenue increased $42 million, or 9%. Excluding the impact of foreign currency translation, Utilities revenue increased primarily due to higher volume sales and tariff rates at our businesses in the Ukraine and higher volumes at Sonel in Cameroon.

Fiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 Gross Margin

The following table summarizes gross margin for the Generation and Utilities segments in Europe & Africa for the periods indicated (in millions):

Europe & Africa

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Europe/Africa Generation

 

 

$

249

 

 

 

7

%

 

 

$

186

 

 

 

6

%

 

 

$

182

 

 

 

7

%

 

Europe/Africa Utilities

 

 

112

 

 

 

3

%

 

 

112

 

 

 

4

%

 

 

60

 

 

 

2

%

 

Generation gross margin increased $63 million, or 34%, primarily due to higher pricing on improved volumes at Ekibastuz and our centralized trading office Altai, both in Kazakhstan, margin on CO2 emission allowance sales by Tisza II in Hungary and Bohemia in the Czech Republic.

Utilities gross margin was flat compared to the prior year primarily due to higher expenses at Sonel in Cameroon, offset by improved volume sales and tariff rates for Sonel and our businesses in Ukraine.

Fiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Gross Margin

Generation gross margin increased $4 million, or 2%, primarily due to higher sales volumes at Tisza II in Hungary, partially offset by increased costs at the Maikuben coal mine in Kazakhstan.


Utilities gross margin increased $52 million, or 87%, primarily due to higher overall revenues, better demand and lower fixed expenses at Sonel in Cameroon.

Asia

The following table summarizes revenue for the Generation segment in Asia for the periods indicated (in millions):

Asia/Middle East

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Asia/Middle East Generation

 

 

$

840

 

 

 

7

%

 

 

$

642

 

 

 

6

%

 

 

$

570

 

 

 

6

%

 

Fiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 Revenue

Asia revenues increased $198 million, or 31%, to $840 million in 2006 from $642 million in 2005. Excluding the estimated impacts of foreign currency translation, revenues would have increased approximately 12%remained constant at 31% from 20032005 to 2004.2006. The increase in revenues in Latin America is primarily due to increased contract pricing at Tiete in Brazil and Gener in Chile, along with a full year’s operating results from Andres in the Dominican Republic. Additionally, the Latin America region was impacted by favorable foreign currency translation at Tiete and Gener. The increase in revenues in EMEA is primarily due to increased contract pricing at Kilroot in Northern Ireland and the completionAsia business consists entirely of the Ras Laffan’s power and water desalination plant in Qatar, as well as the reporting of a full year’s operating results from Barka in Oman which came on line in 2003. These increases were slightly offset by lower volumes at Tisza in Hungary as a result of outages to perform plant upgrades in 2004. Additionally, the EMEA region was impacted favorably by foreign currency translation at Kilroot and Tisza. Slight increases in North America revenue is due to increased contract pricing at Merida in Mexico. Asia revenues remained fairly constant in 2003 and 2004.

Contract Generation Gross Margin

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

 

North America

 

 

$

448

 

 

 

14%

 

 

 

$

511

 

 

 

18%

 

 

 

$

509

 

 

 

20%

 

 

Latin America

 

 

705

 

 

 

22%

 

 

 

512

 

 

 

18%

 

 

 

416

 

 

 

17%

 

 

EMEA

 

 

417

 

 

 

13%

 

 

 

380

 

 

 

14%

 

 

 

308

 

 

 

13%

 

 

Asia

 

 

33

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

25

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

29

 

 

 

1%

 

 

Total

 

 

$

1,603

 

 

 

50%

 

 

 

$

1,428

 

 

 

51%

 

 

 

$

1,262

 

 

 

51%

 

 

Contract Generation Gross Margin as a % of Contract Generation Revenue

 

 

38.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contract generation gross margin increased $175 million, or 12%, to $1.6 billion in 2005 from $1.4 billion in 2004, with higher gross margin contributions from our Latin America businesses offset by lower gross margin contributions from our North American businesses. Gross margin in our Latin America generation businesses increased $193 million, or 38%, due to higher overall revenues at Tiete in Brazil and Gener in Chile and higher revenues and lower purchased electricity at Los Mina in the Dominican Republic. These increases were partially offset by unfavorable foreign currency translation and fixed costs at Tiete and higher fuel and variable costs at Gener. The North America gross margin decrease is primarily due to the decrease in the contract pricing at Shady Point in Oklahoma, outages incurred at Thames in


Connecticut and lower dispatch at Southland in California. The contract generation gross margin as a percentage of revenue decreased to 38.7% in 2005 from 40.3% in 2004.

Contract generation gross margin increased $166 million, or 13%, to $1.4 billion in 2004 from $1.3 billion in 2003 with higher gross margin contributions from our Latin America and EMEA businesses. Gross margin in the Latin America businessesrevenue. Revenues increased primarily due to increased contract pricing escalationsdispatch of approximately $150 million at Tietêthe two Pakistan power generation plants, Lal Pir and Uruguaiana in Brazil slightly offset by higher fuel costsPak Gen, as well as $31 million of improvements at Gener in Chile. The inclusion of a full year’s operating results for Andres in the Dominican Republic also contributed to the gross margin increase. The EMEA gross margin increase isKelanitissa primarily due to pricing escalations at Kilroot in Northern Irelandfavorable dispatch which were partially offset by higher fuel costs inaccounted for $16 million of the increase and increased rates which accounted for $15 million of that same business. Gross margin in EMEA was positively impacted further by the completion of Ras Laffan’s power and water desalination plant in Qatar, as well as the reporting of a full year’s operating results for Barka in Oman which came on line in 2003. Gross margin in North America and Asia remained fairly constant during the period. The contract generation gross margin as a percentage of revenues slightly decreased to 40.3% in 2004 from 40.6% in 2003.increase.

Competitive SupplyFiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Revenue

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

Revenue

 

% of Total
Revenue

 

North America

 

 

$

544

 

 

 

5%

 

 

 

$

447

 

 

 

5%

 

 

 

$

459

 

 

 

5%

 

 

Latin America

 

 

389

 

 

 

4%

 

 

 

300

 

 

 

4%

 

 

 

186

 

 

 

2%

 

 

EMEA

 

 

121

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

136

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

132

 

 

 

2%

 

 

Asia

 

 

158

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

137

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

103

 

 

 

1%

 

 

Total

 

 

$

1,212

 

 

 

11%

 

 

 

$

1,020

 

 

 

11%

 

 

 

$

880

 

 

 

10%

 

 

Competitive supply revenuesAsia Generation revenue increased $192$72 million, or 19%13%, to $1.2 billion$642 million in 2005 from $1.0 billion$570 million in 2004 primarily due to increases at our North America and Latin America businesses.2004. Excluding the estimated impacts of foreign currency translation, revenues would have increased approximately 18%remained constant at 13% from 2004 to 2005. Revenue increased primarily due to increased volumes at Ras Laffan in Qatar of $35 million; at Kelanitissa in Sri Lanka for $12 million; and at Lal Pir in Pakistan for $8 million.

Fiscal Year 2006 versus 2005 Gross Margin

The following table summarizes gross margin for the Generation segment in Asia showed slightfor the periods indicated (in millions):

Asia/Middle East

 

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross
Margin

 

Asia/Middle East Generation

 

 

$

255

 

 

 

8

%

 

 

$

284

 

 

 

10

%

 

 

$

252

 

 

 

10

%

 

The gross margin of Asia decreased $29 million, or 10%, to $255 million in 2006 from $284 million in 2005. Gross margins decreased primarily due to a $16.4 million increase in unfavorable variable operating and maintenance costs and $5.5 million of increases associated with a rural grid fund tax.

101




Fiscal Year 2005 versus 2004 Gross Margin

Gross margin increased $32 million, or 13%, to $284 million in revenues2005 from $252 million in 2004. Generation gross margin increased $32 million, or 13%, primarily due to improved volume in the Middle East markets of $53 million, which were almost entirelywas partially offset by declines from our businesses in EMEA. Thean increase in North America revenuesunfavorable rate variances and depreciation of $17 million and $8 million respectively.

Corporate and Other Expense

Corporate and other expenses include general and administrative expenses related to corporate staff functions and/or initiatives—primarily executive management, finance, legal, human resources, information systems and certain development costs which are not allocable to our business segments. In addition, this line item includes net operating results from other businesses which are immaterial for the purposes of separate segment disclosure and,the effects of eliminating transactions, such as management fee arrangements and self-insurance charges, between the operating segments and corporate.

Corporate and other expenses increased $58 million, or 30.5%, to $248 million in 2006 from $190 million 2005. The increase is primarily due to increases in higher pricescorporate development spending primarily in support of our Alternative Energy and approximately $45 million in  sales of emission allowances at our business in New YorkLatin American businesses.

Corporate and higher prices obtained by Deepwater in Texas. The increase in Latin America revenues is due to higher prices and volume increases at Alicura and Parana in Argentina and higher prices at our business in Panama. Revenues from our Asia businesses showed slight increases due to a mix of higher prices andother expenses increased volume at Ekibastuz, Altai and Maikuben, all located in Kazakhstan. Decreases in revenues from our EMEA businesses are due primarily to the sale of Ottana in Italy during 2005 partially offset by higher prices at Borsod in Hungary.

Competitive supply revenues increased $140$43 million, or 16%29.3%, to $1.0 billion in 2004 from $880 million in 2003 primarily due increases at our Latin America and EMEA businesses. Excluding the estimated impacts of foreign currency translation, revenues would have increased approximately 13% from 2003 to 2004. Asia also showed increases which were partially offset by declines at our North America businesses. The increase in Latin America is primarily due to higher prices and significantly higher than expected dispatch at CTSN in Argentina as a result of increased demand caused by gas shortages in Argentina and increased revenues from the completion of Esti, a greenfield hydroelectric project in Panama, along with the expansion of another hydroelectric project at Bayano in Panama. Additionally, higher competitive market prices for electricity sold at Parana in Argentina also contributed to the overall Latin America increase. The increase in Asia is primarily due to higher competitive prices at Ekibastuz in Kazakhstan and positive foreign currency impacts at Ekibastuz and Altai in Kazakhstan. The increase in revenues in


EMEA is mainly due to positive foreign currency impacts at Ottana in Italy and Borsod in Hungary. These increases were more than offset by declines in North America caused by lower revenues from our plants in New York.

Competitive Supply Gross Margin

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of Total
Gross Margin

 

Gross Margin

 

% of��Total
Gross Margin

 

North America

 

 

$

145

 

 

 

5%

 

 

 

$

85

 

 

 

3%

 

 

 

$

110

 

 

 

5%

 

 

Latin America

 

 

165

 

 

 

5%

 

 

 

113

 

 

 

4%

 

 

 

83

 

 

 

3%

 

 

EMEA

 

 

(12

)

 

 

0%

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

0%

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

0%

 

 

Asia

 

 

40

 

 

 

1%

 

 

 

36

 

 

 

2%

 

 

 

25

 

 

 

1%

 

 

Total

 

 

$

338

 

 

 

11%

 

 

 

$

238

 

 

 

9%

 

 

 

$

221

 

 

 

9%

 

 

Competitive Supply Gross Margin as a % of Competitive Supply Revenue

 

 

27.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competitive supply gross margin increased $100 million, or 42%, to $338$190 million in 2005 from $238$147 million in 2004 with higher gross margin contributions from the North America and Latin America businesses. Gross margin in our North America businesses increased primarily due to higher overall revenues at our businesses in New York which includes approximately $45 million in sales of emission allowances, and at Deepwater in Texas, offset slightly by higher fuel costs in New York and higher operating costs at Deepwater. Gross margin in our Latin America businesses increased due to higher overall revenues at Alicura and Parana in Argentina and lower purchased electricity costs at our business in Panama, offset slightly by higher fuel costs at Alicura and Parana and higher operating costs at Panama. Gross margin in our Asia region increased primarily due to higher overall revenues at Ekibastuz offset slightly by higher operating costs. Gross margin in the EMEA region decreased due to the sale of Ottana in Italy and higher fuel costs at Borsod which more than offset the higher overall revenues experienced. The competitive supply gross margin as a percentage of competitive supply revenues increased to 27.9% in 2005 from 23.3% in 2004.

Competitive supply gross margin increased $17 million, or 8%, to $238 million in 2004 from $221 million in 2003 primarily due to higher gross margin contributions from our Latin America and Asia businesses offset slightly by lower gross margin contributions from our North America businesses. Latin America increased due to higher overall revenues from CTSN and Parana in Argentina and the new plant and expansion project in Panama. These increases were partially offset by higher depreciation and fixed costs at our new operations in Panama and higher fuel costs at Parana in Argentina. The This increase in Asia gross margin is primarily due to the overall revenue increase at Ekibastuz in Kazakhstan. The decrease in gross margin in North America is primarily due to higher fuel costs at our plants in New York. The competitive supply gross margin as a percentage of competitive supply revenues decreased to 23.3% in 2004 from 25.1% in 2003.

General and administrative expenses

General and administrative expenses increased $39 million, or 21%, to $221 million in 2005 from $182 million 2004. General and administrative expenses as a percentage of total revenues remained at 2% in 2005 and 2004. The increases arewas primarily the result of higher professional and consulting fees associated with the restatement of the company’s financial statements as well as increased compensation costs.

84




General For both years ended December 31, 2006 and administrative expenses increased $25 million, or 16%, to $182 million in 2004 from $157 million in 2003. General2005, Corporate and administrative expenses as a percentageOther were 2% of total revenues remained at 2% in 2004 and 2003. The increases are a result of additional corporate personnel and expensing of annual awards of stock options and other long-term incentive compensation. Additional personnel had been added at the parent company to support our key initiatives related to strategy, safety, compliance, information systems and controls. In addition, a higher level of consulting costs were incurred in 2004 and 2003 respectively related to our internal controls reviews as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley and other consulting costs related to implementation of our new corporate initiatives.revenues.

Interest expense

Interest expense decreased $36$91 million, or 2%5%, to $1,896$1,802 million in 2006 from $1,893 million in 2005. Interest expense decreased primarily due to the benefits of debt retirements principally in the U.S., Brazil, Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic, lower interest rates at certain of our businesses, and decreased amortization of deferred financing costs, offset by negative impacts from foreign currency translation in Brazil.

Interest expense decreased $27 million, or 1%, to $1,893 million in 2005 from $1,932$1,920 million in 2004. Interest expense as a percentage of revenues decreased from 20% in 2004 to 17% for 2005. Interest expense decreased primarily due to the benefits of debt retirements principally in the U.S. and Venezuela and lower interest rate hedge related costs, offset by negative impacts from foreign currency translation in Brazil and higher interest rates at certain of our businesses.Brazil.

Interest expense decreased $52 million, or 3%, to $1,932 million in 2004 from $1,984 million in 2003. Interest expense as a percentage of revenues decreased from 24% in 2003 to 20% for 2004. Interest expense decreased primarily due to a reduction of debt associated with the Brazil debt restructuring completed at the end of 2003 and debt refinancings and paydowns offset by interest expense from new projects coming on-line in 2004, new project financings and unfavorable foreign currency translation and inflation adjustment impacts.

Interest income

Interest income increased $109$48 million, or 39%12%, to $391$443 million in 20052006 from $282$395 million in 2004. Interest income as a percentage of revenues increased from 3% in 2004 to 4% in 2005. Interest income increased primarily due to favorable foreign currency translation due primarily toon the Brazilian realReal and higher cash and short-term investment balances at certain of our subsidiaries.

Interest income increased $112 million, or 40%, to $395 million in 2005 from $283 million in 2004. Interest income increased primarily due to favorable foreign currency translation on the Brazilian Real and higher cash and short-term investment balances at certain of our subsidiaries combined with higher short-term interest rates.


InterestOther income

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Gain on extinguishment of liabilities

 

$

45

 

$

82

 

$

72

 

Gain on sale of assets

 

19

 

12

 

14

 

Insurance proceeds

 

13

 

11

 

 

Legal/dispute settlement

 

1

 

10

 

11

 

Other

 

37

 

56

 

60

 

Total other income

 

$

115

 

$

171

 

$

157

 

Other income decreased $56 million to $115 million in 2006 from $171 million in 2005. Other income decreased primarily due to activity at our Brazilian subsidiaries, including the expiration of a tax liability of $70 million and a gain related to the determination of the collectibility of the Sao Paulo municipality agreement in 2005.

Other income increased $2$14 million to $282$171 million in 20042005 from $280$157 million in 2003. Interest income as a percentage of revenues remained constant at 3% in 2004 and 2003. Interest2004. Other income increased primarily due to favorable foreign currency translationthe expiration of a tax liability in Brazil during 2005 coupled with gains on liability and higher interest on spot marketdebt extinguishments at one of the Company’s subsidiaries in Latin America and customer receivables offset by a reclassification adjustmentone in Europe and Africa.

Other expense

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Loss on extinguishment of liabilities

 

$

(181

)

$

(17

)

$

(36

)

Write-down of disallowed regulatory assets

 

(36

)

 

 

Legal/dispute settlement

 

(30

)

(30

)

(5

)

Loss on sale and disposal of assets

 

(28

)

(53

)

(26

)

Marked-to-market loss on commodity derivatives

 

 

 

(5

)

Other

 

(33

)

(32

)

(51

)

Total other expense

 

$

(308

)

$

(132

)

$

(123

)

Other expense increased $176 million to $308 million in 2006 from $132 million in 2005. Other expense increased primarily due to losses associated with the AES Eletropaulo settlementearly extinguishment of certain outstanding municipal receivables.debt at several of our Latin American businesses and write-down of disallowed regulatory assets at one of our subsidiaries in Brazil.

Other income (expense), net

Net other incomeexpense increased $7$9 million to $19$132 million in 2005 from $12$123 million in 2004. The increase wasOther expense increased primarily due to higher losses on sales and disposals of assets at one of our subsidiaries in Brazil and increased legal settlement costs at the reductionparent company and one of our North American subsidiaries in 2005, offset by higher losses related to equity swap agreements to retire debt at the parent company in 2004.

Asset Impairment Expense

As discussed in Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements, asset impairment expense for the year ended 2006 was $29 million and consisted primarily of the following:

During the fourth quarter of 2006, there was a pre-tax impairment charge of $6 million related to AES China Generating Co. Ltd. (Chigen) equity investment in Wuhu, a coal-fired plant located in China. The equity impairment in Wuhu was required as a result of a Brazilian business tax liability no longer required,goodwill impairment analysis at Chigen. During the favorable impactsecond quarter of foreign currency translation2006, there was a pre-tax impairment charge of $11 million related to


AES Ironwood, a gas-fired combined cycle generation plant located in the United States. The fixed asset impairment was caused by a forced outage which was necessary in order to repair a damaged combustion turbine.

Asset impairment expense for the year 2005 was $16 million and consisted primarily of the following:

During the third quarter of 2005, there was a pre-tax impairment charge of $6 million related to Totem Gas Storage, LLC (Totem). The investment asset impairment was due to AES’s notification from the appreciationsole managing member’s intention to dissolve, liquidate, and terminate Totem. This charge, combined with a $1.5 million impairment recognized in the fourth quarter of 2004, represented a complete write-down of AES’s investment in Totem. During the first quarter of 2005, there was a pre-tax impairment charge of $5 million related to AES Southland (Southland). The fixed asset impairment was booked when, in the course of evaluating the impairment of long lived assets in accordance with SFAS No. 144, it was determined that the net book value of the Brazilian real offset by lower gainspeaker units were not fully realizable. During the fourth quarter of 2005, there was an additional pre-tax impairment charge of $2.5 million which represented the remaining carrying value of these units.

Asset impairment expense for the year 2004 was $50 million and consisted primarily of the following:

During the fourth quarter of 2004, there was a pre-tax impairment charge of $15 million related to Aixi, a coal-fired power plant located in China. The investment asset impairment was booked when, in the course of evaluating the impairment of long lived assets in accordance with SFAS No. 144, it was determined that the net book value of this facility was not fully realizable due to circumstances surrounding its operational performance. During the fourth quarter of 2004, there was a pre-tax impairment charge of $25 million related to Deepwater, a petroleum coke-fire cogeneration plant. The investment asset impairment of capitalized costs associated with emission-related improvements was recorded when it was determined that a different strategy would be used to reduce emissions and that the improvements had no alternative uses.

Gain (loss) on debt extinguishment, and increased lossessale of investments

Gain on the sale or disposal of fixed assets.

Net other income decreased $53 million to $12investments was $98 million in 2004 from $65 million in 2003. The decrease2006 and was primarily duecomprised of the following:

·       In March 2006, we sold our equity investment in a power project in Canada (Kingston) for a net gain of $87 million.

·       In September 2006, we transferred Infoenergy, a wholly owned AES subsidiary, to lower gainsBrasiliana for a net gain of $10 million. Brasiliana is 54% owned by BNDES, but controlled by AES. This transaction was part of the Company’s agreement with BNDES to terminate the Sul Option.

There was no gain on debt extinguishments and increased gains on settlement disputes, offset by decreased losses on the sale of assets.investments in 2005 and a $1 million loss on sale of investments in 2004.

Loss on sale of investments and asset impairmentssubsidiary stock

ThereAs discussed in Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, in September 2006, Brasiliana’s wholly owned subsidiary, Transgás sold a 33% economic ownership in Eletropaulo, a regulated electric utility in Brazil. Despite the reduction in economic ownership, there was no loss on sale of investmentschange in Brasiliana’s voting interest in Eletropaulo and asset impairment expense in 2005. Loss on sale of investments and asset impairment expense was $45Brasiliana continues to control Eletropaulo. Brasiliana received $522 million in 2004 compared to $201net proceeds on the sale. On October 5, 2006 Transgás sold an additional 5% economic ownership in Eletropaulo for $80 million. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2006, AES recognized a pre-tax loss of $539 million in 2003 primarily from fewer impairment charges being taken in 2004. The amountas a result of asset impairment expense for 2004 includes the write-offrecognition of $25 million of capitalized costs associated with a fertilizer development


project at our Deepwater facility in Texas. This project was terminated in the fourth quarter of 2004. It also includes a $15 million asset impairment charge taken to reflect the net realizable value of an investment in one of our Chinese businesses which we expect to sell.previously deferred currency translation losses.

In 2003,December 2004, an IPO of 35% of the following actions were taken which ledshares of Barka was completed pursuant to the recordingterms of impairment charges:

·       Inthe power and water purchase agreement. For the twelve months ended December 2003, we sold an approximate 39% ownership interest in31, 2004, AES Oasis Limited (“AES Oasis”) for cash proceedsrecognized a pre-tax loss of approximately $150 million. The loss realized on the transaction was approximately $36$24 million before income taxes. AES Oasis is an entity that owns an electric generation project in Oman (AES Barka) and two oil-fired generating facilities in Pakistan (AES Lal Pir and AES Pak Gen). AES Barka, AES Lal Pir, and AES Pak Gen are all contract generation businesses.

·       During the fourth quarteras a result of 2003, we decided to discontinue the development of ZEG, a contract generation plant under construction in Poland. In connection with this decision, we wrote-off our investment in ZEG of approximately $23 million before income taxes.

·       In August 2003, we decided to discontinue the construction and development of AES Nile Power in Uganda (“Bujagali”). In connection with this decision, we wrote-off our investment in Bujagali of approximately $76 million before income taxes in the third quarter of 2003.

·       During the second quarter of 2003, we wrote off capitalized costs of approximately $20 million associated with our development project in Honduras when we elected to offer the project for sale after consideration of existing business conditions and future opportunities. The project consisted of a 580 MW combined-cycle power plant fueled by natural gas, a liquefied natural gas import terminal with storage capacity of one million barrels and transmission lines and line upgrades. The project was sold in January 2004.

·       Additionally, during 2003, we recorded $16 million of other losses which resulted from the sale of assets to third parties, and $29 million of other asset impairment charges taken to reflect the net realizable value of discontinued development projects and other non-recoverable assets.Barka shares.

Goodwill impairment expense

During 2003, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $11 million primarily related to all of the goodwill at Atlantis, an aragonite mining operation in the Caribbean. The write-off was due to a reduction in the fair value of the business below its carrying value due to a slow down of operations from the termination of sales contracts that have not been replaced.


Foreign currency transaction (losses) gainslosses on net monetary position

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

  2005  

 

  2004  

 

  2003  

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

Argentina

 

 

$

(6

)

 

 

$

(7

)

 

 

$

38

 

 

Brazil

 

 

(96

)

 

 

(58

)

 

 

124

 

 

Venezuela

 

 

54

 

 

 

(28

)

 

 

(40

)

 

Dominican Republic

 

 

1

 

 

 

(28

)

 

 

3

 

 

Pakistan

 

 

(22

)

 

 

(17

)

 

 

(15

)

 

Chile

 

 

(20

)

 

 

(3

)

 

 

(16

)

 

Spain

 

 

 

 

 

(18

)

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

(6

)

 

 

5

 

 

Total(1)

 

 

$

(89

)

 

 

$

(165

)

 

 

$

99

 

 

The following table summarizes the losses on the Company���s net monetary position from foreign currency transaction activities.


 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

AES Corporation

 

$

(17

)

$

10

 

$

(8

)

Argentina

 

(3

)

(5

)

(6

)

Brazil

 

(56

)

(96

)

(58

)

Venezuela

 

12

 

44

 

(25

)

Dominican Republic

 

 

1

 

(28

)

Pakistan

 

(18

)

(22

)

(17

)

Chile

 

 

(20

)

(3

)

Kazakhstan

 

1

 

(4

)

14

 

Columbia

 

(1

)

(5

)

(8

)

Cameroon

 

2

 

(4

)

5

 

Other

 

3

 

 

(2

)

Total(1)

 

$

(77

)

$

(101

)

$

(136

)


(1)          Includes $(58) million, $(122) million $(114) million and $(15)$(97) million of (losses) gainslosses on foreign currency derivative contracts for December 31,30, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The Company recognized foreign currency transaction losses of $77million in 2006 compared to losses from foreign currency transactions of $101 million in 2005. The $24 million decrease in losses for 2006 as compared to 2005 was primarily related to lower foreign currency transaction losses in Brazil and 2003, respectively.Chile offset by lower foreign currency transaction gains in Venezuela and increased foreign currency transaction losses at the parent company. Foreign currency movements typically result from changes in U.S. Dollar exchange rates at subsidiaries whose functional currency is not the U.S. Dollar, as well as gains or losses on monetary assets and liabilities denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the entity and gains or losses on foreign currency derivatives.

The reduction in foreign currency transaction losses in Brazil is primarily due to a reduction in derivative transaction losses as a result of the reduction in U.S. Dollar denominated debt balances at Eletropaulo partially offset by a decrease in foreign currency transaction gains associated with U.S. Dollar denominated debt balances as the Brazilian Real appreciated 13% in 2006 as compared to 2005. The reduction in foreign currency transaction losses in Chile is primarily due to the devaluation of the Chilean Peso by 4% in 2006 versus 2005, resulting in decreased losses on foreign currency derivative contracts at Gener.

The reduction in foreign currency transaction gains in Venezuela is primarily due to the 11% devaluation of the Venezuelan Bolivar in 2005 compared to minimal change in 2006. When the Venezuelan Bolivar devalues, gains are recognized related to the remeasurement of Bolivar denominated monetary liabilities, including debt. Thus, lower foreign currency transaction gains of $12 million were realized in 2006 versus $44 million in 2005 as a result of minimal change of the Bolivar in 2006.

The Company recognized foreign currency transaction losses of $89$101 million in 2005 compared to losses from foreign currency transactions of $165$136 million in 2004. The $76$35 million decrease in losses for 2005 as compared to 2004 was primarily related to the gains in Venezuela and the Dominican Republic partially offset by losses in Brazil and Chile. Foreign currency transaction losses decreased primarily due to lower annual depreciationdevaluation in 2005 of the Venezuelan bolivarBolivar of 10.7% compared to 16.7% in 2004 contributing to $82$69 million of the change year over the year. The Dominican peso depreciatedPeso devalued 11.3% in 2005 as


compared to a 31.2% appreciation in 2004 contributing to $29 million of the change year over year partially related to one of our Dominican businesses which has a net monetary liability position denominated in the Dominican peso.Peso. The Brazilian realReal appreciated 11.7% during 2005 compared to 7.5% in 2004 offsetting the overall decrease in foreign currency losses by $38 million. The Chilean pesoPeso appreciated 15.86%15.9% during 2005 compared to no change in 2004. The appreciation of the Chilean Peso increased losses onof foreign currency derivative contracts in our Chilean businesses offsetting the overall decrease in foreign currency losses by $14$17 million.

The Company recognized foreign currency transaction losses of $165 million in 2004 compared to gains from foreign currency transactions of $99 million in 2003. The decrease of $264 million for 2004 as compared to 2003 was primarily related to losses in Brazil, Argentina, and the Dominican Republic. Foreign currency transaction losses increased primarily due to lower annual appreciation in 2004 of the Brazilian real of 7.5% compared to 23.7% in 2003 contributing to $182 million of the change year over year. The Argentine peso devalued 1.7% during 2004 thereby contributing $45 million of losses to the overall change. Additionally, the Dominican peso appreciated 31.2% during 2004. This is related to one of our Dominican businesses which has a net monetary liability position denominated in the Dominican peso. This appreciation in the Dominican peso contributed to the change year over year by $31 million in losses. Foreign currency transaction losses in Spain resulted from the prospective loss of cash flow hedge accounting on foreign currency derivative contracts substantially settling by the end of 2004.

Equity in earnings (losses) of affiliates

Equity in earnings of affiliates increased $6$2 million, or 9%3%, to $76$72 million in 2006 from $70 million in 2005. The increase was primarily due to the settlement of a legal claim in 2006 related to AES Barry, an equity method investment of AES during the first quarter of 2006, and higher earnings at several affiliates in Latin America. The increase was offset by the impact of increased losses at Cartagena, an equity method investment in Spain, in 2006 as compared to 2005.

Equity in earnings of affiliates increased $7 million, or 11%, to $70 million in 2005 from $70$63 million in 2004. The increase was primarily due to a plant fire causing lower earnings in 2004 at our affiliate in Canada, improved operations from our affiliates in India and the Netherlands, partially offset by reduced earnings due to higher coal prices at our affiliates in China.

Equity in earnings of affiliates decreased $24 million, or 26%, to $70 million in 2004 from $94 million in 2003. The decrease was primarily due to the sale of our ownership in Medway Power Ltd. in 2003 offset by slight increases from our affiliates in China.

Income taxes

Income tax expense related to continuing operations increased $106decreased $122 million to $465$403 million in 2006 from $525 million in 2005. The Company’s effective tax rates were 31% for 2006 and 36% for 2005. The reduction in the 2006 effective tax rate was due, in part, to the second quarter 2006 release of a $43 million valuation allowance at the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary, Eletropaulo, related to its deferred tax assets on certain pension obligations, a decrease in U.S. taxes on distributions from certain non-U.S. subsidiaries due to recent changes in tax laws, and the sale of Kingston in the first quarter of 2006, the gain on which was not taxable.

Income tax expense related to continuing operations increased $145 million to $525 million in 2005 from $359$380 million in 2004. The Company’s effective tax rates were 32%36% for 2005 and 44% for 2004. The reduction in the 2005 effective tax rate iswas due, in part, to athe reduction in theof taxes imposed on earnings of and distributions from ourthe Company’s foreign subsidiaries and adjustments derived from the Company’s 2004 income tax returns filed in 2005.

Income tax expense related to continuing operations increased $148 million to $359 million in 2004 from $211 million in 2003. The Company’s effective tax rates were 44% for 2004 and 33% for 2003. The effective tax rate increased in 2004 due to the impact of increasing certain deferred tax valuation allowances and the treatment of unrealized foreign currency gains on U.S. dollar debt held by certain of our Latin American subsidiaries.


Minority interest

Minority interest expense, net of tax, increased $162$241 million to $361$610 million in 2006 from $369 million in 2005. The increase is primarily due to higher earnings from our Brazilian companies offset by a decrease in the third quarter of 2006 in our economic ownership in Eletropaulo from 34% to 16%. We entered into a series of transactions to sell a portion of our shares in Eletropaulo as part of the restructuring of Brasiliana. See Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of the sale of Eletropaulo shares and Brasiliana restructuring.

Minority interest expense, net of tax, increased $158 million to $369 million in 2005 from $199$211 million in 2004. The increase is primarily due to higher earnings from our Brazilian companies,subsidiaries in Brazil and Cameroon subsidiaries and the 2004 sale of our interest in Oasis.

Minority interest expense, net of tax, increased $60 million to $199 million in 2004 from $139 million in 2003. The increase is primarily due to the sale of stock by our subsidiary in Brazil, the sale of a portion of our interest in Oasis and higher earnings for Ras Laffan allocated to the minority interest since the project came on-line in 2004.

Discontinued operations

As discussed in Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K; during 2006 we discontinued certain of our operations including Eden, a regulated utility located in Argentina, AES Indian Queens Power Limited and AES Indian Queens Operations Limited, collectively


“IQP”, which is an Open Cycle Gas Turbine, located in the U.K. Income from operations of discontinued businesses, net of tax, was $34$11 million in 20042006.

In May 2006, the Company reached an agreement to sell 100% of its interest in Eden. Governmental approval of the transaction is still pending in Argentina, but the Company has determined that the sale is probable at this time. Therefore, Eden, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AES, has been classified as “held for sale” and reflected as such on the face of the financial statements. The Company recognized a $62 million impairment charge to adjust the carrying value of Eden’s assets to their estimated net realizable value. The impairment expense is included in the 2006 loss from disposal of discontinued businesses line item on the financial statements.

In September 2006, the Company completed the sale of IQP. Proceeds from the sale were $28 million in cash and the buyer’s assumption of debt of $30 million. The Company recognized a gain on disposal of discontinued businesses of $5 million. The results of operations of IQP and the associated gain on disposal are reflected in the discontinued operations line items on the financial statements.

In 2005, income from operations of discontinued businesses, net of tax, was $34 million. Income from operations of Eden and IQP totaled approximately $3 million for 2005. Additionally, a reversal of approximately $31 million was recorded in the third quarter of 2005 at Eden, related to the salesrelease of valuation allowance previously recorded against its net deferred tax assets.

Loss from operations of discontinued businesses, net of tax, was $59 million in 2004. This loss was offset by a gain on disposal of discontinued businesses of $91 million during  the year. Businesses sold during 2004 included Whitefield, AES Communications Bolivia, Colombia I, Ede Este, Wolf Hollow, Carbones Internacionales del Cesar S.A. and Granite Ridge. All of theseThese entities had originally beenwere recorded in discontinued operationoperations in either 2003 or 2002. Additionally,prior years.

Extraordinary item

As discussed in 2004,Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, in May 2006, AES purchased an additional 25% interest in Itabo, a power generation business located in the Dominican Republic for approximately $23 million. Prior to May, the Company held a 25% interest in Itabo, through its Gener subsidiary, and had accounted for the investment using the equity method of accounting with a corresponding investment balance reflected in the “Investments in and advances to affiliates” line item on the consolidated balance sheets. As a result of the transaction, the Company consolidates Itabo and, therefore, the investment balance has been reclassified to the appropriate line items on the consolidated balance sheets with a corresponding minority interest liability for the remaining 50% interest not owned by AES. The Company realized an after-tax extraordinary gain of $21 million as a result of filing our 2003 tax returns, previously recorded estimatesthe transaction due to an excess of the tax effect of the discontinued businesses were adjusted to reflect the final tax returns. As a result, favorable tax adjustments are reflected in the net income of discontinued operations. As of December 31, 2004, no further businesses were classified as discontinued operations.

Loss from operations of discontinued businesses, net of tax, was $787 million in 2003. During 2003, we discontinued certain of our operations including Haripur, Meghnaghat, Barry, Telasi, Mtkvari, Khrami, Drax, Whitefield, AES Communications Bolivia, Granite Ridge, Ede Este, Wolf Hollow, and Colombia I. We closed the sale of Barry in September 2003, Telasi, Mtkvari, and Khrami in August 2003 and Haripur and Meghnaghat in December 2003.

Change in accounting principle

In March 2005, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation (“FIN”) No. 47 “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143,” which clarifies the term “conditional asset retirement obligation” as used in SFAS No. 143 “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” The cumulative effect of the initial application of this Interpretation was recognized as a change in accounting principle in the amount of $2 million, net of income tax benefit of $1 million in 2005.

On January 1, 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations” which requires companies to record the fair value of a legal liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. The items that are part of the scope of SFAS No. 143 for our business primarily include active ash landfills, water treatment basins and the removal or dismantlement of certain plant and equipment. The adoption of SFAS No. 143 resulted in a cumulative reduction to income of $2 million, net of income tax effects, in 2003.

On October 1, 2003, we adopted Derivative Implementation Group (“DIG”) Issue C-20 which superseded and clarified DIG Issue C-11 regarding the treatment of power sales contracts. As a result of this adoption, we had a Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) that was previously treated as a “normal sales and purchase contract” that was treated as a derivative instrument under SFAS No. 133 and marked-to-market upon adoption of DIG Issue C-20. The prospective method of accounting for this PPA requires no further mark-to-market treatment, and the initial mark-to-market adjustment will be subsequently amortizednoncurrent assets over the life of the contract. The adoption of DIG Issue C-20, effective October 1, 2003 resulted in a cumulative increase to income of $43 million, net of income tax effects, in 2003.purchase price.

Capital Resources And LiquidityCAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY

Overview

We are a holding company that conducts all of our operations through subsidiaries. We have, to the extent achievable, utilized non-recourse debt to fund a significant portion of the capital expenditures and


investments required to construct and acquire our electric power plants, distribution companies and related assets. This type of financing is non-recourse to other subsidiaries and affiliates and to us (as the parent company), and is generally secured by the capital stock, physical assets, contracts and cash flow of the related subsidiary or affiliate. At December 31, 2005,2006, we had $4.9 $4.8billion of recourse debt and $12.8$11.6 billion of non-recourse debt outstanding. For more information on our long-term debt see Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K/A.10-K.


In addition to the non-recourse debt, if available, we, as the parent company, provide a portion, or in certain instances all, of the remaining long-term financing or credit required to fund development, construction or acquisition. These investments have generally taken the form of equity investments or loans, which are subordinated to the project’s non-recourse loans. We generally obtain the funds for these investments from our cash flows from operations and/or the proceeds from our issuances of debt, common stock, and other securities as well as proceeds from the sales of assets. For example in March 2006, AES sold its interest in Kingston for $110 million. Similarly, in certain of our businesses, we may provide financial guarantees or other credit support for the benefit of lenders or counterparties who have entered into contracts for the purchase or sale of electricity with our subsidiaries. In such circumstances, if a subsidiary defaults on its payment or supply obligation, we will be responsible for the subsidiary’s obligations up to the amount provided for in the relevant guarantee or other credit support.

We intend to continue to seek where possible non-recourse debt financing in connection with the assets or businesses that our affiliates or we may develop, construct or acquire. However, depending on market conditions and the unique characteristics of individual businesses, non-recourse debt may not be available or may not be available on economically attractive terms. If we decide not to provide any additional funding or credit support to a subsidiary that is under construction or has near-term debt payment obligations and that subsidiary is unable to obtain additional non-recourse debt, such subsidiary may become insolvent and we may lose our investment in such subsidiary. Additionally, if any of our subsidiaries lose a significant customer, the subsidiary may need to restructure the non-recourse debt financing. If such subsidiary is unable to successfully complete a restructuring of the non-recourse debt, we may lose our investment in such subsidiary.

As a result of AES parent’s below-investment-grade rating, counter-parties may be unwilling to accept our general unsecured commitments to provide credit support. Accordingly, with respect to both new and existing commitments, we may be required to provide some other form of assurance, such as a letter of credit, to backstop or replace our credit support. We may not be able to provide adequate assurances to such counter-parties.counterparties. In addition, to the extent we are required and able to provide letters of credit or other collateral to such counterparties, this will reduce the amount of credit available to us to meet our other liquidity needs. At December 31, 2005,2006, we had provided outstanding financial and performance related guarantees or other credit support commitments to or for the benefit of our subsidiaries, which were limited by the terms of the agreements, in an aggregate of approximately $802 $995million (including those collateralized by letters of credit and other obligations discussed below). Management believes that cash on hand, along with cash generated through operations, and our financing availability will be sufficient to fund normal operations, capital expenditures, and debt service requirements.

At December 31, 2005,2006, we had $294 $461million in letters of credit outstanding, which operate to guarantee performance relating to certain project construction and development activities and subsidiary operations. All of these letters of credit were provided under our revolver.revolving credit facility and senior unsecured credit facility. We pay letter of credit fees ranging from 0.15%1.63% to 2.75%2.64% per annum on the outstanding amounts. In addition, we had $1 $1million in surety bonds outstanding at December 31, 2005.2006.

Many of our subsidiaries including those in Central and South America depend on timely and continued access to capital markets to manage their liquidity needs. The inability to raise capital on favorable terms, to refinance existing indebtedness or to fund operations and other commitments during times of political or economic uncertainty may adversely affect those subsidiaries’ financial condition and results of operations. In addition, changes in the timing of tariff increases or delays in the regulatory


determinations under the relevant concessions could affect the cash flows and results of operations ofin our businesses in Brazil and Venezuela.regulated utility businesses.

108




Capital Expenditures

WeThe Company spent $1.1$1.5 billion, $0.9$0.8 billion and $1.2$0.7 billion on capital expenditures in 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, respectively. We anticipate capital expenditures during 20062007 to approximate between $1.7$2.3 to $2.5 billion and $1.8 billion.excluding EDC, our former Venezuelan business. Planned capital expenditures include new project construction costs, environmental pollution control construction and expenditures for existing assets to increase their useful lives. Capital expenditures for 20062007 are expected to be financed using internally generated cash provided by operations and project level financing and possibly debt or equity financing at the AES parent company.company level.

Cash Flows

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Favorable/(Unfavorable)

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

06 vs. 05

 

05 vs. 04

 

(in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating

 

$

2,411

 

$

2,154

 

$

1,608

 

 

$

257

 

 

 

$

546

 

 

Investing

 

(902

)

(661

)

(743

)

 

(241

)

 

 

82

 

 

Financing

 

(1,317

)

(1,339

)

(1,285

)

 

22

 

 

 

(54

)

 

At December 31, 2005,2006 we had $1,390 million ofincreased cash and cash equivalents representing an increase of $109by $254 million from December 31, 2004.2005 to a total of $1,575 million. The change in cash balances was impacted by $2,411 million of cash provided by operating activities offset by a use of cash for investing and financing of $902 million and $1,317 million, respectively and the positive effect of foreign currency translation of cash balances of $62 million.

Operating Activities

Net cash provided by operating activities totaled $2,165increased by $257 million to $2,411 million during 2005, which2006 compared to $2,154 million during 2005. This increase was $594 million greater than 2004primarily due to a $360to:

·       $552 million increase in net earnings (adjusted for non-cashnon cash items), a $243 and,

·       $43 million of certain settlement proceeds, partially offset by,

·       $211 million increase in other assetscash taxes paid predominately by our Brazilian subsidiaries,

·       higher long term compensation payments, and liabilities, and

·       one-time cash inflow of $49 million received in the first quarter of 2005 by EDC, our Venezuelan subsidiary, related to a decrease in working capital of $9 million. cancelled foreign exchange derivative instrument.

The $28$895 million increase in adjustments“adjustments to net income (loss) from $1,457 million in 2004 to $1,485 million in 2005 isincome” was primarily due to the reversal of non-cash adjustments for:

·       a $470 million loss on the sale by Transgas of Eletropaulo shares;

·       $147 million increased depreciation and amortization,losses on debt extinguishment;

·       an increase in minority interest expense and a loss on discontinued operations in 2004 which did not occur in 2005.  These increases wereof $238 million;

·       $183 million higher reserves for various liabilities, including litigation adjustments for various Brazilian subsidiaries; partially offset by, decreases

·       $172 million decrease in the provision for deferred taxestaxes; and realized gains on investments in Venezuela and Brazil.  There was a gain on the sale

·       $41 million increased earnings of emission allowances in New York and additional amortization of deferred financing costs due to new debt issuances. In addition, there was a reversal of a contingent liability in 2005 at Brazil due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.affiliates.


The $243 million increasefollowing table includes details of changes in otheroperating assets and liabilities is primarily due to an increase in derivative liabilities, a decrease in a long-term receivable due to a reserve adjustment made in Brazil, and movements in regulatory liabilities. Regulatory liabilities increased due to lower costs than anticipated inon the tariff as well as the market performanceface of the dollar. These increases were partially offset by settlement proceeds Gener received in 2004.

The $9 million decrease in working capital is due increases in inventory and accounts payable and accrued liabilities offset by decreases in accounts receivable prepaid expenses and other current assets.Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows:

 

2005

 

2004

 

Change

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

Change

 

 

(in millions)   

 

 

(in millions)

 

Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable

 

$

26

 

 

$

(128

)

 

 

$

154

 

 

 

$

84

 

$

(29

)

 

$

113

 

 

Increase in inventory

 

(73

)

 

(33

)

 

 

(40

)

 

 

(24

)

(70

)

 

46

 

 

Decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets

 

41

 

 

7

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

8

 

94

 

 

(86

)

 

(Increase) decrease in accounts payable and accrued liabilities

 

(79

)

 

78

 

 

 

(157

)

 

Total working capital

 

$

(85

)

 

$

(76

)

 

 

$

(9

)

 

Decrease in other assets

 

165

 

84

 

 

81

 

 

Decrease in accounts payable and accrued liabilities

 

(400

)

(119

)

 

(281

)

 

(Decrease) increase in other liabilities

 

(122

)

45

 

 

(167

)

 

Total

 

$

(289

)

$

5

 

 

$

(294

)

 

 

Accounts receivable decreased in the current year primarily due to enhanced collection efforts at Eletropaulo and Ras Laffan, partially offset by an increase in accounts receivablelower energy pricing at our New York plant due to higher energy prices.plant.

90




Inventory increased in the current year primarily due to the resumption of normal activityseasonal increases and higher coal pricing at New York and IPL as well as an increase in the Dominican Republiccopper pricing at EDC which is used for cabling.

Other assets decreased in the current year after a period of inactivity in the prior year; an increase in the price of coal at IPALCO and an increase in the purchase of fuel at Tisza offset by a reduction of inventory at Alicura.  

Prepaid expenses and other current assets decreased due to greater amortization ofa decrease in regulatory assets at Eletropaulo as a result of the pass throughrecovery of energy related costs are collectedand a decrease in a long term receivable due from the customers and lower VAT accruals at Cartagena for contractor invoices partiallyGovernment of Cameroon, SONEL’s largest customer. These decreases were offset by higher year end purchase levelsan increase in long term customer receivables at SONEL.Eletropaulo and a prepayment of an insurance premium at Maritza, in Bulgaria.

Accounts payable and other current liabilities declined in the current year mainly due to the release of the SUL option, a decrease in accrued interest due to debt restructuring at Brasiliana and Eletropaulo and a decrease in swap payments due to Ras Laffan contractors, a reduction in payables to supplierslower energy pricing at SONEL and more timely payments at Barka. In addition, taxNew York.

Other liabilities were reduced at IPALCO and other subsidiariesdecreased in the priorcurrent year primarily due to our tax restatement.the decrease in pension liabilities at Eletropaulo, IPL, Sul, and EDC.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in 2006 for investing activities totaled $873$902 million compared to $661 million for 2005, an increase of $241 million. This increase was primarily attributable to the following:

Capital expenditures increased $634 million to $1,460 million during 20052006 compared to $1,025 million during 2004. The cash used in investing activities includes $1,1432005 mainly due to increased spending of $245 million for property additionsthe Maritza East 1 lignite-fired power plant in Bulgaria, $161 million for wind development projects at Buffalo Gap 2 in the U.S., $83 million primarily for pollution control technology projects at IPL in the U.S., $41 million primarily for the Greenidge and Westover clean coal projects at New York in the U.S., $37 million at EDC in Venezuela and $33 million at Sul in Brazil.

Acquisitions-net of cash acquired totaled $19 million in 2006 and $85 million in 2005, a $66 million reduction over 2005. This included $13 million to acquire an additional 25% of Itabo in the Dominican Republic and approximately $5 million to acquire the remaining shares in Alicura located in Argentina. The $85 million spent in the prior year related to our wind development businesses: the purchase of SeaWest’s net assets and pre-construction costs for acquisitions. This was offset byBuffalo Gap. Both operations are located in the proceeds from the sales of assets of $26 million, the proceedsU.S.

Proceeds from the sale of emission allowancesbusinesses totaled $898 million in 2006 and $22 million in 2005, an increase of $41$876 million. The sales included $522 million from the sale by Transgas of Eletropaulo preferred shares and $80 million in a related sale by Brasiliana of its preferred shares in Eletropaulo, $123 million from the sale of approximately 7.6% of our shares in AES Gener, $110 million from the sale of our Kingston business in Canada, $33 million from the sale of unissued shares at EDC and $28 million from the sale of


Indian Queens. The proceeds in 2005 included the sale of a minority interest in Barka Holdings, Ltd. for $22 million.

The purchase of short-term investments, net of sales, increased $502 million during 2006 as compared to the same period in 2005. These transactions included a $255 million increase in net purchases at Tiete in Brazil due to a change in investment strategy from investing in cash equivalents to Brazilian government bonds, a $158 million decrease in the net sale of short term investments at EDC due to the release of $152a collateral deposit on local debt, a $70 million increase in net purchases at Eletropaulo in Brazil, funded by the redemption of financial treasury bills and a decrease$30 million increase in restrictednet purchases at Gener as the result of additional time deposits acquired.

Restricted cash debt service reserves and other assets and other investing of $136 million.

Property additionsbalances in 2006 increased $251$102 million duringover 2005 as compared to 2004 due to additional expenditures of $103 million at Cartagena, our construction project in Spain, $137 million for Buffalo Gap, our wind power project in Texas, and $50 million in Brazil for the purchase and capitalized costs associated with the implementationbalances. This change was comprised of the enterprise resource planning software. Offsetting the increase in property additions is decreased spending of $45following increases: $59 million at Ras Laffan in Qatar, $31 million at IPL, $30 million at Kilroot in the United Kingdom, $26 million at Southland in the U.S. and $17 million at Parana in Argentina. These increases were offset by decreases of $44 million at New York, $26 million at Eletropaulo in Brazil and $26 million at Panama.

Proceeds from the sales of emission allowances totaled $82 million in 2006, a $40 million increase over 2005. Purchases of emission allowances totaled $77 million in 2006, a $58 million increase over 2005. These sales and purchases occurred primarily by businesses located in the U.S. and Europe. Included in the purchases during 2006 was a $45 million commitment to purchase Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits from AgCert International (“AgCert”). AgCert is an alternative energy, Ireland-based company which uses agricultural sources to produce greenhouse gas emission offsets under the Kyoto protocol.

Debt service reserves and other assets totaled $46 million in 2006, a $146 million decrease over the balance in 2005. This was mainly due to large capital expenditures incurred prior to going into commercial operationsdecreases of $45 million at the end of 2004. The increase in property additions is also offset by a reduction in spending on environmental compliance projects of approximatelyTiete, $42 million at IPALCO in the U.S.

In the first quarter of 2005, we spent a total of $85 million related to the purchase of the SeaWest wind development business in the U.S., including $60 million for the existing net assets of the business and an additional $25 million advance payment for pre-construction costs for SeaWest's development of Buffalo Gap.

The increase in the net sales of short-term investments of $136 million during 2005 as compared to 2004 was primarily due to the release of collateral at EDC, in Venezuela of $145 million which was as a result of a repayment of approximately $264 million of related debt.  This increase was offset by a decrease in sales of short-term investments at Gener of $29 million due to higher liquidations in the prior year to repay debt.

The decrease in the net proceeds from the sale of assets of $37 million during 2005 as compared to 2004 was primarily due to the sale in the prior year of the Nacimiento power plant at Gener for $22 million the sale of discontinued businesses (primarily Mountainview)at Eletropaulo, $21 million at Ebute in 2004 forNigeria, $13 million net of expenses, as well as the sale of a substation property at IPALCO for $13 million in 2004.  These decreases were partially offset by increases at Brazil.

The change in restricted cash balances decreased $90 million during 2005 as compared to 2004 primarily due to a decrease in restricted cash of $127Panama, $10 million at Ras Laffan for construction payments made to the contractor, of $17Southland and $8 million at EDC for the release of restricted cash associated with letters of credit which were paidSonel in September 2005, of $23 million due to debt related repayments at Gener and of $16 million due to debt related repayments at Ebute.Africa. These decreases were offset by a $58 million increase


at the New York plants due to increased emission sales as well as $35 millionan increase at Barka due to major maintenance on their gas turbines plannedIronwood for 2007.$17 million and at Hawaii for $11 million, both located in the U.S.

The change in debt service reserves and other assets decreased $219Purchases of long-term available-for-sale securities includes $52 million in 2005 as compared to 2004 primarily due to the payment of $254 million of construction costs from a reserve account related to our Cartagena construction projectan investment in Spain, offset by an increase of $20 millionAgCert in debt service reserves at our Ebute plant in Nigeria required to satisfy the debt requirements on $120 million of financing.2006.

The change in other investing balances decreased $39 million primarily due to the collection of a receivable for a minority interest buyout in our contract generation segment in Asia.

Financing Activities

Net cash used in financing activities was $1,195decreased by $22 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 asto $1,317 million during 2006 compared to $936$1,339 million during the same period in 2004. The significant2005. This change was dueattributable to a decrease in debt, net of issuances of $1,052$102 million an increase in 2005 versus $734contributions from minority interests of $124 million and an increase due to issuance of common stock of $52 million offset by an increase in 2004.distributions to minority interests of $149 million, an increase in payments for deferred financing of $65 million and an increase in payments for financed capital expenditures of $51 million.

Debt issuances decreased by $1,051of recourse debt, non-recourse debt and revolving credit facilities, net during 2006 were $3,169 million compared to $1,768 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 primarily2005. This increase of $1,401 million was due to parent company recourse debt issuancesan increase in borrowings at Brasiliana in Brazil of $491$744 million, at Maritza in 2004 compared to $5Bulgaria of $240 million, at Itabo in 2005.  The remaining decreases were attributable to our subsidiaries.  At Generthe Dominican Republic of $177 million, at Buffalo Gap 2 in Chile,the U.S. of $116 million and at Lal Pir in Pakistan of $64 million. In addition, there were refinancings at Sul in Brazil for $476 million, at Panama for $287 million and at IPL in the U.S. for $156 million as well as bond issuances of approximately $570at CAESS for $207 million and at CLESA for $77 million, both located in 2004 and other debt refinancings of approximately $253 million during 2004 compared to $119 million in the current year.  At Cartagena in Spain, there was a $166 million decrease over the prior year in project debt financing.  At EDC in Venezuela, there was a decrease of $353 million over the prior year at EDC due to the issuance of debt in local currency in 2004 as part of its debt restructuring.El Salvador. These reductions in debt issuancesincreases were offset by increaseda decrease in borrowings at Eletropaulo of $656 million. Brazil issued a $200 million U.S. dollar equivalent bond issuance in June 2005, $348 million and $109 million of debentures in September and December 2005, respectively. The issuances in 2005 were used to pay off higher interest-bearing debt.

Debt repayments during the twelve months ended December 31, 2005 were $2,941 million compared to $3,674 million during the same period in 2004. The decrease of approximately $733 million was mainly due to repayment of corporate recourse debt of $1,140 million in 2004 compared to $259 million in 2005. The 2005 payments include the redemption of all of the Company’s 8.5% Senior Subordinated Notes and its 4.5% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures. In addition, Gener decreased debt repayments in 2005 by $907 million due to the completion of their debt restructuring and refinancing that occurred during 2004. This was offset by increased debt and debenture payments at Eletropaulo and Tiete in Brazil of $727$618 million, in 2005 to pay off higher interest-bearing debt; increased debt repayments at Andres in the Dominican Republic of $112$160 million, due to the debt restructuring in 2005 whereby the proceeds received were used to pay off short term debt; and increased debt repayments at EDC in Venezuela of $105$141 million, at Wind in the U.S. of $110 million and at Tiete in Brazil of $80 million. There was also a decrease in refinancing at Gener in Chile for $31 million.


Debt repayments during 2006 were $4,209 million compared to $2,910 million during 2005. The increase of $1,299 million was primarily due to repayments at Brasiliana for $1,032 million, at Sul for $446 million, at Panama for $281 million, at Tiete for $274 million, at CAESS for $175 million, at IPL for $130 million, at Buffalo Gap for $116 million, at Lal Pir for $57 million and at CLESA for $55 million. This increase was offset by a decrease in repayments at Eletropaulo of $594 million, at EDC of $408 million, at Andres of $112 million, at the repaymentparent of 200$108 million Euro debtand at Gener of $58 million.

Minority contributions during 2006 were $125 million compared to $1 million during 2005. This resulted in March 2005 andan increase of $124 million primarily due to Buffalo Gap in the repaymentU.S., which received a contribution from their tax equity partners of debt$117 million. Minority distributions were $335 million compared to $186 million during 2005. This increase of $149 million was primarily due to Tiete, which paid minority dividends of $170 million during 2006 compared to $66 million in local currency of $66 million.2005.

Payments for deferred financing costs decreased $88during 2006 were $86 million compared to $21 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 20052005. The $65 million increase in payments was primarily due to parent company debt issuances in the prior year that did not occurnew financing at the same level in the current year, higher deferred financing costsMaritza and refinancing at Gener due to the size of the debt offering in 2004, higher deferred financing costs in 2004Sul.

Financed capital expenditures increased $51 million during 2006 predominately at Brazil due to their reprofiling of debt in 2004, and higher deferred financing costs at Ebute due to the $120 million refinancing arrangement in September 2004.Buffalo Gap where we financed these acquisitions by paying for them over a period greater than three months.


Contractual Obligations

A summary of the Company’sour contractual obligations, commitments and other liabilities as of December 31, 20052006 is presented in the table below (in millions).

Contractual Obligations

 

 

 

Total

 

Less than
1 year

 

2-3
years

 

4-5
years

 

After
5 years

 

Footnote
Reference

 

 

 

 

Total

 

Less
than 1
year

 

1-3
years

 

4-5
years

 

After 5
years

 

Footnote
Reference

 

Debt Obligations(1)

 

$

17,706

 

 

$

1,798

 

 

$

2,733

 

$

3,104

 

$

10,071

 

 

8

 

 

Interest payments on long-term debt(2)

 

9,696

 

 

1,352

 

 

2,551

 

2,019

 

3,774

 

 

n/a

 

 

Capital Lease Obligations(3)

 

75

 

 

5

 

 

9

 

7

 

54

 

 

10

 

 

Other Long-term Liabilities Reflected on AES’s Consolidated Balance Sheet under GAAP(4)

 

136

 

 

8

 

 

44 

 

21

 

63

 

 

n/a

 

 

Operating Lease Obligations(5)

 

146

 

 

12

 

 

22

 

20

 

92

 

 

10

 

 

Sale Leaseback Obligations(6)

 

1,376

 

 

61

 

 

125

 

128

 

1,062

 

 

10

 

 

Electricity Obligations(7)

 

7,809

 

 

1,088

 

 

2,412

 

2,766

 

1,543

 

 

10

 

 

Fuel Obligations(8)

 

7,605

 

 

803

 

 

1,269

 

982

 

4,551

 

 

10

 

 

Other(9)

 

1,009

 

 

196

 

 

180

 

142

 

491

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Obligations(1)

Debt Obligations(1)

 

$

16,345

 

$

1,453

 

$

2,639

 

$

3,127

 

$

9,126

 

 

8

 

 

Interest Payments on Long-Term Debt(2)

Interest Payments on Long-Term Debt(2)

 

9,819

 

1,394

 

2,517

 

2,012

 

3,896

 

 

n/a

 

 

Capital Lease Obligations(3)

Capital Lease Obligations(3)

 

10

 

4

 

5

 

1

 

 

 

10

 

 

Other Long-term Liabilities Reflected on AES’s Consolidated Balance Sheet under GAAP(4)

Other Long-term Liabilities Reflected on AES’s Consolidated Balance Sheet under GAAP(4)

 

892

 

85

 

180

 

152

 

475

 

 

n/a

 

 

Operating Lease Obligations(5)

Operating Lease Obligations(5)

 

178

 

17

 

30

 

22

 

109

 

 

10

 

 

Sale Leaseback Obligations(6)

Sale Leaseback Obligations(6)

 

1,316

 

63

 

126

 

134

 

993

 

 

10

 

 

Electricity Obligations(7)

Electricity Obligations(7)

 

23,389

 

1,430

 

3,204

 

3,568

 

15,187

 

 

10

 

 

Fuel Obligations(8)

Fuel Obligations(8)

 

10,509

 

1,020

 

1,902

 

1,554

 

6,033

 

 

10

 

 

Other(9)

Other(9)

 

3,374

 

1,234

 

1,058

 

263

 

819

 

 

10

 

 

Total

Total

 

$

45,558

 

 

$

5,123

 

 

$

9,346

 

$

9,188

 

$

21,901

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

$

65,832

 

$

6,700

 

$

11,661

 

$

10,833

 

$

36,638

 

 

 

 

 


(1)          Debt Obligations—Debt obligations includesIncludes non-recourse debt and recourse debt presented on our consolidated financial statements. Non-recourse debt borrowings are not a direct obligation of The AES, Corporation, the parent company, and are primarily collateralized by the capital stock of the relevant subsidiary and in certain cases the physical assets of, and all significant agreements associated with, such subsidiaries. These non-recourse financings include structured project financings, acquisition financings,financing, working capital facilities and all other consolidated debt of the subsidiaries. Recourse debt borrowings are the borrowings of The AES, Corporation, the parent company. Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K provides disclosure of these obligations.

(2)          Interest payments—Interest payments are estimated based on final maturity dates of debt securities outstanding at December 31, 20052006 and do not reflect anticipated future refinancing, early redemptions, new debt issuances or certain interest on liabilities other than debt. Variable rate interest obligations are estimated based on rates as of December 31, 2005.2006.


(3)          Capital Lease Obligations—One of AES’s subsidiaries, AES Indian Queens Power Limited, conducts a major part of its operations from leased facilities. The plant lease is for 25 years expiring in 2022. In addition, severalSeveral AES subsidiaries lease operating and office equipment and vehicles. The totalThese leases have been recorded as capital lease obligationleases in Property, Plant and Equipment within “Electric Generation and Distribution Assets.”  Minimum contractual obligations include $2 million of $75 million represents the future minimum lease commitments. The present value of the capital lease obligations included in the consolidated balance sheet totals $44 million. Imputed interest for these obligations total $31 million.imputed interest.

(4)          Other long-term liabilitiesLong-Term Liabilities reflected on AES’s consolidated balance sheet under GAAP include only those amounts in long-term liabilities reflected on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet that are contractual obligations. These amounts do not include (1) current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet, (2) any taxes or regulatory liabilities, (3) contingencies, (4) pension and other than pensionpost retirement employee benefit liabilities (see Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K).

(5)          As of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company was obligated under long-term non-cancelable operating leases, primarily for office rental and site leases. These amounts exclude amounts related to the sale/leaseback discussed below in item (6).

(6)          Sale/Leaseback Obligations - In May 1999, a subsidiary of the Company acquired six electric generating stations from New York State Electric and Gas (“NYSEG”). Concurrently, the subsidiary sold two of the plants to an unrelated third party for $666 million and simultaneously entered into a leasing arrangement with the


unrelated party. This transaction has been accounted for as a sale/leaseback with operating lease treatment.

(7)          SomeOperating subsidiaries of our operating subsidiariesthe Company have entered into contracts for the purchase of electricity from third parties.

(8)          SomeFuel Obligations - Operating subsidiaries of our operating subsidiariesthe Company have entered into various contracts for the purchase of fuel subject to termination only in certain limited circumstances.

(9)          Amounts relate to other contractual obligations where the Company has an agreement to purchase goods or services that is enforceable and legally binding on the Company that specifies all significant terms, including:  fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. Included in the total amount is (1) $833 million of other contracts denoted in Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, (2) $84 million of costs related to supply of spare parts and maintenance, and (3) $92 million related to other service and fuel contracts.transactions. These amounts also exclude planned capital expenditures that are not contractually obligated.

Parent Company Liquidity

Because of the non-recourse nature of most of our indebtedness, we believeThe AES Corporation believes that unconsolidated parent company liquidity is an important measure of liquidity. Our principal sources of liquidity at the parent company level are:

·       dividends and other distributions from our subsidiaries, including refinancing proceeds;

·       proceeds from debt and equity financings at the parent company level, including borrowings under our Revolving Bank Loan;credit facilities; and

·       proceeds from asset sales.sales

Our cash requirements at the parent company level are primarily to fund:

·       interest and preferred dividends;

·       principal repayments of debt;

·       acquisitions;

·       construction commitments;

·       other equity commitments;


·       taxes; and

·       parent company overhead and development costs.

Since 2002, the CompanyThe AES Corporation has undertaken various initiatives to improve the credit and risk profile of both the parent and the consolidated company while continuing to pursue disciplined growth.

On June 1, 2005, the Company redeemed all outstanding 8.5% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2007, at a redemption price of 101.417%, and an aggregate principal amount of approximately $112 million.

On June 23, 2005, the Company amended its $450 million Senior Secured Bank Facilities. The interest rate on the $450 million Revolving Bank Loan was reduced to the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 1.75%. Previously, the rate was LIBOR plus 2.5%. In addition, the Revolving Bank Loan maturity was extended from 2007 to 2010. The interest rate on the term $200 million Senior Secured Term Loan was also reduced to LIBOR plus 1.75%, from LIBOR plus 2.25%, while its maturity in 2011 remains unchanged. On September 30, 2005, the Company upsized the Revolving Bank Loan to a total commitment amount of $650 million from $450 million. As of December 31, 2005, $356 million was available from the $650 million Revolving Bank Loan. As of March 31, 2006, we are in default under our


senior bank credit facility due to the restatement of our 2003 financial statements. As a result, the debt under our senior bank credit facility has been classified as current on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2005. In addition, we need to obtain a waiver of this default and an amendment of the representation relating to our 2003 financial statements before we will be able to borrow additional funds under our revolving credit facility. The Company is pursuing an amendment and waiver with its senior bank lenders and expects to obtain it in the near term.

On August 15, 2005, the Company repaid at maturity all outstanding 4.5% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures (“the Debentures”) at par for an aggregate principal amount of $142 million.

During the first half of 2005, the Company also funded the purchase of the SeaWest wind development business and posted letters of credit to support ongoing construction and operating activities.

On March 3, 2006, the CompanyThe AES Corporation redeemed all of its outstanding 8.875% Senior Subordinated Debentures due 2027 (approximately $115 million aggregate principal amount). The redemption was made pursuant to the optional redemption provisions of the indenture governing the Debentures. The Debentures were redeemed at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus a make-whole premium determined in accordance with the terms of the indenture, plus accrued and unpaid interest up to the redemption date.

On MarchIn December 2006, The AES Corporation exercised its right to increase the revolving credit facility by $100 million to a total of $750 million. As of December 31, 2006, there were no outstanding borrowings against the revolving credit facility. We had $88 million of letters of credit outstanding against the revolving credit facility and $662 million available under the revolving credit facility as of December 31, 2006.

The AES Corporation entered into a $600$500 million senior unsecured credit facility agreement with a maturity date ofeffective March 31, 2010.2006. On May 1, 2006, The AES Corporation exercised its option to extend the total amount of the senior unsecured credit facility by an additional $100 million to a total of $600 million. At December 31, 2006, the Company had no outstanding borrowings under the senior unsecured credit facility. The AES Corporation had $373 million of letters of credit outstanding against the senior unsecured credit facility as of December 31, 2006. The credit facility is a syndicated loan and letter of credit facility lead arranged by Merrill Lynch. The credit facility will bebeing used for general corporate purposes and to provide letters of credit to support AES’s investment commitment as well as the underlying fundingour ongoing share of construction obligations for the equity portion of its investment in AES Maritza East 1 on an intermediate-term basis. AES Maritza East 1 is a coal-fired generation project that is expected to begin construction soon. Additional non-recourse financing has been committed to begin constructionand for general corporate purposes.

The following table sets forth parent company liquidity as of AES Maritza East 1.

Parent liquidity was as follows at December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003:for the periods indicated.

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

Parent Company Liquidity

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

(in millions)

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

1,390

 

$

1,281

 

$

1,663

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

1,575

 

$

1,321

 

$

1,154

 

Less: Cash and cash equivalents at subsidiaries

 

1,128

 

994

 

798

 

Less: Cash and cash equivalents at subsidiaries

 

1,338

 

1,059

 

867

 

Parent cash and cash equivalents

 

262

 

287

 

865

 

Parent cash and cash equivalents

 

237

 

262

 

287

 

Borrowing available under revolving credit facility

 

356

 

352

 

180

 

Borrowing available under revolving credit facility

 

662

 

356

 

352

 

Borrowing available under senior unsecured credit facility

Borrowing available under senior unsecured credit facility

 

227

 

 

 

Cash at qualified holding companies

 

6

 

4

 

25

 

Cash at qualified holding companies

 

20

 

6

 

4

 

Total parent liquidity .

 

$

624

 

$

643

 

$

1,070

 

Total parent liquidity

Total parent liquidity

 

$

1,146

 

$

624

 

$

643

 

 

Our parent recourse debt at year-end was approximately $4.8 billion, $4.9 billion, and $5.2 billion in 2006, 2005 and $5.9 billion in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. Our contingent contractual obligations were $995 million, $802 million, $559 million, and $605$559 million at the end of 2006, 2005, and 2004, and 2003, respectively.

114




The following table sets forth our parent company contingent contractual obligations as of December 31, 2005:2006:

Contingent contractual obligations

 

 

 

Amount

 

Number of
Agreements

 

Exposure Range for
Each Agreement

 

Contingent Contractual obligations

 

 

 

Amount

 

Number of
Agreements

 

Exposure Range
for Each
Agreement

 

 

($ in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

Guarantees

Guarantees

 

 

$

507

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

<$1 - $100

 

 

Guarantees

 

 

$

533

 

 

 

$

32

 

 

 

<$1 - $100

 

 

Letters of credit—under the Revolver

 

 

294

 

 

 

18

 

 

 

<$1 - $  74

 

 

Letters of credit under the revolving credit facility

Letters of credit under the revolving credit facility

 

 

88

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

<$1 - $26

 

 

Letters of credit under the senior unsecured credit facility

Letters of credit under the senior unsecured credit facility

 

 

373

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

<$1 - $333

 

 

Surety bonds

Surety bonds

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

$1

 

 

Surety bonds

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

<$1

 

 

Total

Total

 

 

$

802

 

 

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

 

$

995

 

 

 

$

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95




We have a varied portfolio of performance related contingent contractual obligations. Amounts related to the balance sheet items represent credit enhancements made by us at the parent company level and by other third parties for the benefit of the lenders associated with the non-recourse debt recorded as liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. These obligations are designed to cover potential risks and only require payment if certain targets are not met or certain contingencies occur. The risks associated with these obligations include change of control, construction cost overruns, subsidiary default, political risk, tax indemnities, spot market power prices, suppliersupplies support and liquidated damages under power sales agreements for projects in development, under construction and operating. While we do not expect that we will be required to fund any material amounts under these contingent contractual obligations during 20062007 or beyond, that are not recorded on the balance sheet, many of the events which would give rise to such an obligationobligations are beyond our control. We can provide no assurance that we will be able to fund our obligations under these contingent contractual obligations if we are required to make substantial payments thereunder.

While we believe that our sources of liquidity will be adequate to meet our needs through the end of 2006,2007, this belief is based on a number of material assumptions, including, without limitation, assumptions about our ability to access the capital markets, the operating and financial performance of our subsidiaries, exchange rates, power market pool prices, and the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends. In addition, our project subsidiaries’ ability to declare and pay cash dividends to us (at the parent company level) is subject to certain limitations contained in project loans, governmental provisions and other agreements. We can provide no assurance that these sources will be available when needed or that our actual cash requirements will not be greater than anticipated. We have met our interim needs for shorter-term and working capital financing at the parent company level with a Revolving Bank Loan of $650 million. We did not have any outstanding borrowings under theour revolving credit facility at December 31, 2005. At December 31, 2005, we had $294 millionand senior unsecured credit facility. See Item 1A. “Risk Factors—The AES Corporation is a holding company and its ability to make payments on its outstanding indebtedness, including its public debt securities, is dependent upon the receipt of lettersfunds from its subsidiaries by way of credit outstanding under the Revolving Bank Loan.dividends, fees, interest, loans or otherwise”

Various debt instruments at the parent company level, including our Senior Secured Credit Facilitiessenior secured credit facilities, contain certain restrictive covenants. The covenants provide for, among other items:

·       limitations on other indebtedness, liens, investments and guarantees;

·       restrictions on dividends and redemptions and payments of unsecured and subordinated debt and the use of proceeds;

·       restrictions on mergers and acquisitions, sales of assets, leases, transactions with affiliates and off balance sheet and derivative arrangements;

·       maintenance of certain financial ratios; and

·       timely filing of reports with SEC (of which we had defaults with respect to our 2ndfinancial and 3rd quarter 2005 Form 10-Qs and this annual report on Form 10-K.)other reporting requirements.


Non-Recourse Debt Financing

While the lenders under our non-recourse debt financings generally do not have direct recourse to the parent company, defaults thereunder can still have important consequences for our results of operations and liquidity, including, without limitation:

·       reducing our cash flows as the subsidiary will typically be prohibited from distributing cash to the parent level during the time period of any default;

·       triggering our obligation to make payments under any financial guarantee, letter of credit or other credit support we have provided to or on behalf of such subsidiary;

·       causing us to record a loss in the event the lender forecloses on the assets; and


·       triggering defaults in our outstanding debt at the parent level.

For example, our Senior Secured Credit Facilitiessenior secured credit facilities and outstanding debt securities at the parent level include events of default for certain bankruptcy related events involving material subsidiaries. In addition, our revolving credit agreement at the parent level includes events of default related to payment defaults and accelerations of outstanding debt of material subsidiaries.

Some of our subsidiaries are currently in default with respect to all or a portion of their outstanding indebtedness. The total debt classified as current in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets related to such defaults was $138$245 million at December 31, 2005.2006, all of which is non-recourse debt.

None of the subsidiaries that are currently in default are owned by subsidiaries that currently meet the applicable definition of materiality in AES’s corporate debt agreements in order for such defaults to trigger an event of default or permit an acceleration under such indebtedness. However, as a result of additional dispositions of assets, other significant reductions in asset carrying values or other matters in the future that may impact our financial position and results of operations, it is possible that one or more of these subsidiaries could fall within the definition of a “material subsidiary” and thereby upon an acceleration trigger an event of default and possible acceleration of the indebtedness under the AES parent company’s outstanding debt securities.

Off BalanceOff-Balance Sheet Arrangements

In May 1999, one of our subsidiaries acquired six electric generating plants from New York State Electric and Gas. Concurrently, the subsidiary sold two of the plants to an unrelated third party for $666 million and simultaneously entered into a leasing arrangement with the unrelated party. We have accounted for this transaction as a sale/leaseback transaction with operating lease treatment. Accordingly, we have not recorded these assets on our books and we expense periodic lease payments, which amounted to $54 million in 2005, as incurred. The lease obligations bear an imputed interest rate of approximately 9% which approximates fair market value. We are not subject to any additional liabilities or contingencies if the arrangement terminates, and we believe that the dissolution of the off-balance sheet arrangement would have minimal effects on our operating cash flows. The terms of the lease include restrictive covenants such as the maintenance of certain coverage ratios. As of December 31, 2005, we fulfilled a lease requirement on the subsidiary’s behalf by funding an additional liquidity account, as defined in the lease agreement, in the form of a $36 million letter of credit, issued under our Revolving Bank Loan. However, the subsidiary is required to replenish or replace this letter of credit in the event it is drawn upon or requires replacement. Historically, the plants have satisfied the restrictive covenants of the lease, and there are no known trends or uncertainties that would indicate that the lease will be terminated early. See Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for a more complete discussion of this transaction.

IPL, a subsidiary of the Company, formed IPL Funding Corporation (“IPL Funding”) in 1996 as a special-purpose entity to purchase on a revolving basis, up to $50 million of the retail accounts receivable and related collections of IPL. IPL Funding is not consolidatedreceivables originated by IPL or IPALCO since it meets requirements set forth in SFAS No. 140, “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities”pursuant to be considered a qualified special-purpose entity.receivables sale agreement entered into with IPL. At the same time, IPL Funding has entered into a purchase facility (the “Purchase Facility”) with unrelated parties (“the Purchasers”(the “Purchasers”) pursuant to which the Purchasers agree to purchase from IPL Funding, on a revolving basis, up to $50 million, of interests in the pool of receivables


purchased from IPL. As collections reduce accounts receivable included in the pool, IPL Funding sells ownership interests in additional receivables acquired from IPL to return the ownership interests sold up to a maximum of $50 million, as permitted by the Purchase Facility. During 2005, this agreement2006, the Purchase Facility was extended through May 30, 2006. As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, the aggregate amount of receivables IPL has sold to29, 2007. IPL Funding and IPL Funding has sold tois included in the Purchasers pursuant to this facility was $50 million.consolidated financial statements of IPL. Accounts receivable on the Company’saccompanying consolidated balance sheets of IPALCO are stated net of the $50 million sold.


The net cash flows between IPL and IPL Funding are limited to cash payments made by IPL to IPL Funding for interest charges and processing fees. These payments totaled approximately $2 million, $1 million and $1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. IPL retains servicing responsibilities throughfor its role as a collection agent foron the amounts due on the sold receivables. However, the Purchasers assume the risk of collection on the purchased receivables. receivables without recourse to IPL in the event of a loss. While no direct recourse to IPL exists, it risks loss in the event collections are not sufficient to allow for full recovery of its retained interests. No servicing asset or liability is recorded since the servicing fee paid to IPL approximates a market rate.

The carrying values of the retained interest is determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value. The key assumptions in estimating fair value are credit losses, the selection of discount rates, and expected receivables turnover rate. As a result of short accounts receivable turnover period and historically low credit losses, the impact of these assumptions have not been significant to the fair value. The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history.

The losses recognized on the sales of receivables were $3 million, $2 million and $1 million for 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These losses are included in Other operating expense on the consolidated statements of income. The amount of the losses recognized depends on the previous carrying amount of the financial assets involved in the transfer, allocated between the assets sold and the interests that continue to be held by the transferor based on their relative fair value at the date of transfer, and the proceeds received.

There are no proceeds from new securitizations for each of 2006, 2005 and 2004. Servicing fees of $0.6 million were paid for each of 2006, 2005 and 2004.

IPL and IPL Funding provide certain indemnities to the Purchasers, including indemnification in the event that there is a breach of representations and warranties made with respect to the purchased receivables. IPL Funding and IPL each have agreed to indemnify the Purchasers on an after-tax basis for any and all damages, losses, claims, liabilities, penalties, taxes, costs and expenses at any time imposed on or incurred by the indemnified parties arising out of or otherwise relating to the purchase agreement,facility, subject to certain limitations as defined in purchase agreement. The transfers of such accounts receivable from IPL to IPL Funding are recorded as sales; however, no gain or loss is recorded on the sale.Purchase Facility.

Under the receivables purchase facility,Purchase Facility, if IPL fails to maintain certain financial covenants regarding interest coverage and debt to capital,debt-to-capital ratios, it would constitute a “termination event.”  As of December 31, 2005,2006, IPL was in compliance with such covenants.

As a result of IPL’s current credit rating, the facility agent has the ability to (i) replace IPL as the collection agent; and (ii) declare a “lock-box” event. Under a lock-box event or a termination event, the facility agent has the ability to require all proceeds of purchased receivables of IPL to be directed to lock-box accounts within 45 days of notifying IPL. A termination event would also (i) give the facility agent the option to take control of the lock-box account, and (ii) give the Purchasers the option to discontinue the purchase of newadditional interests in receivables and cause all proceeds of the purchased receivablesinterests to be used to reduce the Purchaser’s investment and to pay other amounts owed to the Purchasers and the facility agent. This would have the effect of reducing the operating capital available to IPL by the aggregate amount of such purchased interests in receivables (currently $50 million).


ITEM 7A.         QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Overview Regarding Market Risks

We are exposed to market risks associated with interest rates, foreign exchange rates and commodity prices. We often utilize financial instruments and other contracts to hedge against such fluctuations. We also utilize financial and commodity derivatives for the purpose of hedging exposures to market risk. We generally do not enter into derivative instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

Interest Rate Risks

We are exposed to risk resulting from changes in interest rates as a result of our issuance of variable-rate debt, fixed-rate debt and trust preferred securities, as well as interest rate swap and option agreements. Depending on whether a plant’s capacity payments or revenue stream is fixed or varies with inflation, we partially hedge against interest rate fluctuations by arranging fixed-rate or variable-rate financing. In certain cases, we execute interest rate swap, cap and floor agreements to effectively fix or limit the interest rate exposure on the underlying financing.

Foreign Exchange Rate Risk

We are exposed to foreign currency risk and other foreign operations risk that arise from investments in foreign subsidiaries and affiliates. A key component of this risk is that some of our foreign subsidiaries and affiliates utilize currencies other than our consolidated reporting currency, the U.S. dollar. Additionally, certain of our foreign subsidiaries and affiliates have entered into monetary obligations in U.S. dollars or currencies other than their own functional currencies. Primarily, we are exposed to changes in the U.S. dollar/Brazilian realReal exchange rate, the U.S.U.S dollar/Venezuelan bolivarEuro exchange rate and the U.S. dollar/Argentine peso British Pound exchange rate. Whenever possible, these subsidiaries and affiliates have


attempted to limit potential foreign exchange exposure by entering into revenue contracts that adjust to changes in foreign exchange rates. We also use foreign currency forwardforwards, swaps and swap agreements,options, where possible, to manage our risk related to certain foreign currency fluctuations.

Commodity Price Risk

We are exposed to the impact of market fluctuations in the price of electricity, natural gas and coal. Although we primarily consist of businesses with long-term contracts or retail sales concessions, a portion of our current and expected future revenues are derived from businesses without significant long-term revenue or supply contracts. These competitive supply businesses subject our results of operations to the volatility of electricity, coal and natural gas prices in competitive markets. Our businesses hedge certain aspects of their “net open” positions in the U.S. We have used a hedging strategy, where appropriate, to hedge our financial performance against the effects of fluctuations in energy commodity prices. The implementation of this strategy involvescan involve the use of commodity forward contracts, futures, swaps and options as well as long-term supply contracts for the supply of fuel and electricity.

Value at Risk

One approach we use to assess our risk and our subsidiaries’ risk is value at risk (“VaR”). VaR measures the potential loss in a portfolio’s value due to market volatility, over a specified time horizon, stated with a specific degree of probability. The quantification of market risk using VaR provides a consistent measure of risk across diverse markets and instruments. We adopted the VaR approach because we feel that statistical models of risk measurement, such as VaR, provide an objective, independent assessment of a component of our risk exposure. Our use of VaR requires a number of key assumptions, including the selection of a confidence level for expected losses, the holding period for liquidation and the treatment of risks outside the VaR methodology, including liquidity risk and event risk. VaR, therefore, is


not necessarily indicative of actual results that may occur. Additionally, VaR represents changes in fair value and not the economic exposure to AES and its affiliates.

Because of the inherent limitations of VaR, including those specific to Analytic VaR, in particular the assumption that values or returns are normally distributed, we rely on VaR as only one component in our risk assessment process. In addition to using VaR measures, we perform stress and scenario analyses to estimate the economic impact of market changes to our portfolio of businesses. We use these results to complement the VaR methodology.

In addition, the relevance of the VaR described herein as a measure of economic risk is limited and needs to be considered in light of the underlying business structure. The interest rate component of VaR is due to changes in the fair value of our fixed rate debt instruments and interest rate swaps. These instruments themselves would expose a holder to market risk; however, utilizing these fixed rate debt instruments as part of a fixed price contract generation business mitigates the overall exposure to interest rates. Similarly, our foreign exchange rate sensitive instruments are often part of businesses which have revenues denominated in the same currency, thus offsetting the exposure.

We have performed a company-wide VaR analysis of all of our material financial assets, liabilities and derivative instruments. Embedded derivatives are not appropriately measured here and are excluded since VaR is not representative of the overall contract valuation. The VaR calculation incorporates numerous variables that could impact the fair value of our instruments, including interest rates, foreign exchange rates and commodity prices, as well as correlation within and across these variables. We express Analytic VaR herein as a dollar amount of the potential loss in the fair value of our portfolio based on a 95% confidence level and a one-day holding period. Our commodity analysis is an Analytic VaR utilizing a variance-covariance analysis within the commodity transaction management system.


During the year ended December 31, 2005, ourThe following table sets forth average daily VaR as of December 31, for interest rate-sensitive instruments was $114 million. The daily VaR for interest rate-sensitive instruments was highest at the end of the second quarter, and equaled $129 million. The daily VaR for interest rate-sensitive instruments was lowest at the end of the first quarter, and equaled $101 million. These amounts include the financial instruments that serve as hedges and the underlying hedged items.periods indicated.

Average Daily VAR

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Foreign Exchange

 

 

$

36

 

 

$

34

 

$

27

 

Interest Rate

 

 

$

76

 

 

$

114

 

$

110

 

Commodity

 

 

$

24

 

 

$

19

 

$

9

 

During the year ended December 31, 2005,2006, our average daily VaR for foreign exchange rate-sensitive instruments was $34$36 million. The daily VaR for foreign exchange rate-sensitive instruments was highest at the end of the second quarter, and equaled $38$45 million. The daily VaR for foreign exchange rate-sensitive instruments was lowest at the end of the fourth quarter, and equaled $30$20 million. These amounts include foreign currency denominated debt and hedge instruments. The foreign exchange VaR increased in the third quarter due to short-term hedge instruments. The proportion of non-USD denominated debt has increased in the AES portfolio. The diverse portfolio and low market volatilities contributed to a decrease in the foreign exchange VaR in the latter part of the year.

During the year ended December 31, 2006, our average daily VaR for interest rate-sensitive instruments was $76 million. The daily VaR for interest rate-sensitive instruments was highest at the end of the first quarter, and equaled $111 million. The daily VaR for interest rate-sensitive instruments was lowest at the end of the third quarter and equaled $60 million. These amounts include the financial instruments that serve as hedges and the underlying hedged items. AES had decreased its portfolio of USD-denominated debt which in part led to the decrease in interest rate VaR.


During the year ended December 31, 2005,2006, our average daily VaR for commodity price-sensitive instruments was $19$24 million. The daily VaR for commodity price-sensitive instruments was highest at the end of the third quarter, and equaled $24$28 million. The daily VaR for commodity price-sensitive instruments was lowest at the end of the firstfourth quarter, and equaled $10$20 million. These amounts include the financial instruments that serve as hedges and do not include the underlying physical assets or contracts that are not permitted to be settled in cash.

Trending daily VaR can provide insight into market volatility or consistency of a company’s financial strategy. The table below details the average daily VaR for AES foreign exchange, interest rates and commodity activities over the past three years. In regards to interest rates, AES has made efforts during 2004 and 2005 to increaseincreased the percentage of its portfolio of Brazilian Real and Euro denominated floating debt and reduced the percentage of US dollar-denominated fixed versus floating rate debt. This has in part led to the increasedecrease in Interest Rate VaR from $99$110 million in 20032004 to $114$76 million in 2005.2006. The AES commodity VaR is reported for financially settled derivative products at its competitive supplyEastern Energy business in New York State. From 2004 to 20052006 there has been an increase in term and magnitude of hedging activity which has led to the increase in the daily VaR from $9 million in 2004 to $19 million.

Average Daily VAR

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Foreign Exchange

 

$

34

 

$

27

 

 

$

34

 

 

Interest Rate

 

$

114

 

$

110

 

 

$

99

 

 

Commodity

 

$

19

 

$

9

 

 

$

6

 

 

$24 million in 2006.

100120




ITEM 8.FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The AES Corporation
Arlington, VA

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of The AES Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005.2006. Our audits also included the financial statement schedules listed on pages S-1 to S-9 of the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K.S2-S9. These financial statements and financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements and financial statement schedules based on our audits.

We conducted our audits 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 the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The AES Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005,2006, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No.158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans” effective in 2006. In 2005, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement ObligationsObligations.”” effective December 15, 2005. In 2003, the Company changed its method of accounting for certain contracts for the purchase or sale of electricity effective October 1, 2003 to conform to Derivative Implementation Group Issue C-20; the Company changed its method of accounting for certain contracts for the purchase or sale of electricity effective April 1, 2003 to conform to Derivative Implementation Group Issue C-15; the Company also changed its method of accounting for stock-based compensation effective January 1, 2003, to conform to the fair value recognition provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 123, as amended by Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 148, prospectively to all employee awards granted, modified or settled after January 1, 2003, and the Company adopted Statement of SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations” effective January 1, 2003.

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the accompanying 20042005 and 20032004 consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules have been restated.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated April 4, 2006May 22, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of material weaknesses.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

McLean, VA
April 4,May 22, 2007


THE AES CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
DECEMBER 31, 2006 AND 2005

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CURRENT ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

1,575

 

 

$

1,321

 

 

Restricted cash

 

548

 

 

477

 

 

Short-term investments

 

640

 

 

199

 

 

Accounts receivable, net of reserves of $239 and $276, respectively

 

1,903

 

 

1,648

 

 

Inventory

 

518

 

 

457

 

 

Receivable from affiliates

 

81

 

 

73

 

 

Deferred income taxes—current

 

213

 

 

270

 

 

Prepaid expenses

 

113

 

 

119

 

 

Other current assets

 

943

 

 

688

 

 

Current assets of held for sale and discontinued businesses

 

31

 

 

35

 

 

Total current assets

 

6,565

 

 

5,287

 

 

NONCURRENT ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property, Plant and Equipment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land

 

950

 

 

860

 

 

Electric generation and distribution assets

 

23,990

 

 

22,301

 

 

Accumulated depreciation

 

(6,979

)

 

(5,975

)

 

Construction in progress

 

1,113

 

 

847

 

 

Property, plant and equipment, net

 

19,074

 

 

18,033

 

 

Other assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deferred financing costs, net of accumulated amortization of $191 and $219, respectively

 

285

 

 

275

 

 

Investments in and advances to affiliates

 

596

 

 

665

 

 

Debt service reserves and other deposits

 

524

 

 

546

 

 

Goodwill, net

 

1,419

 

 

1,413

 

 

Other intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization of $203 and $155, respectively

 

305

 

 

284

 

 

Deferred income taxes—noncurrent

 

663

 

 

783

 

 

Noncurrent assets of held for sale and discontinued businesses

 

105

 

 

265

 

 

Other assets

 

1,627

 

 

1,409

 

 

Total other assets

 

5,524

 

 

5,640

 

 

TOTAL ASSETS

 

$

31,163

 

 

$

28,960

 

 

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CURRENT LIABILITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

$

892

 

 

$

1,091

 

 

Accrued interest

 

412

 

 

380

 

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

2,227

 

 

2,107

 

 

Current liabilities of held for sale and discontinued businesses

 

45

 

 

51

 

 

Recourse debt-current portion

 

-

 

 

200

 

 

Non-recourse debt-current portion

 

1,453

 

 

1,447

 

 

Total current liabilities

 

5,029

 

 

5,276

 

 

LONG-TERM LIABILITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-recourse debt

 

10,102

 

 

10,638

 

 

Recourse debt

 

4,790

 

 

4,682

 

 

Deferred income taxes-noncurrent

 

790

 

 

777

 

 

Pension liabilities and other post-retirement liabilities

 

883

 

 

865

 

 

Long-term liabilities of held for sale and discontinued businesses

 

62

 

 

136

 

 

Other long-term liabilities

 

3,371

 

 

3,334

 

 

Total long-term liabilities

 

19,998

 

 

20,432

 

 

Minority Interest (including discontinued businesses of $8 and $7, respectively)

 

3,100

 

 

1,626

 

 

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities (see Notes 10 and 11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock ($.01 par value, 1,200,000,000 shares authorized; 665,126,309 and 655,882,836 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively)

 

7

 

 

7

 

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

6,654

 

 

6,561

 

 

Accumulated deficit

 

(1,025

)

 

(1,286

)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

(2,600

)

 

(3,656

)

 

Total stockholders’ equity

 

3,036

 

 

1,626

 

 

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

$

31,163

 

 

$

28,960

 

 


(1)See Note 1 related to the restated consolidated financial statements

101See notes to consolidated financial statements.


THE AES CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006, 2005, AND 2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

Revenues:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulated

 

$

6,849

 

 

$

6,252

 

 

 

$

5,172

 

 

Non-Regulated

 

5,450

 

 

4,769

 

 

 

4,220

 

 

Total revenues

 

12,299

 

 

11,021

 

 

 

9,392

 

 

Cost of Sales:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulated

 

(4,578

)

 

(4,418

)

 

 

(3,710

)

 

Non-Regulated

 

(4,090

)

 

(3,404

)

 

 

(2,891

)

 

Total cost of sales

 

(8,668

)

 

(7,822

)

 

 

(6,601

)

 

Gross margin

 

3,631

 

 

3,199

 

 

 

2,791

 

 

General and administrative expenses

 

(305

)

 

(225

)

 

 

(181

)

 

Interest expense

 

(1,802

)

 

(1,893

)

 

 

(1,920

)

 

Interest income

 

443

 

 

395

 

 

 

283

 

 

Other expense

 

(308

)

 

(132

)

 

 

(123

)

 

Other income

 

115

 

 

171

 

 

 

157

 

 

Gain (loss) on sale of investments

 

98

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

Loss on sale of subsidiary stock

 

(539

)

 

 

 

 

(24

)

 

Asset impairment expense

 

(29

)

 

(16

)

 

 

(50

)

 

Foreign currency transaction losses on net monetary position

 

(77

)

 

(101

)

 

 

(136

)

 

Equity in earnings of affiliates

 

72

 

 

70

 

 

 

63

 

 

INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES AND MINORITY INTEREST

 

1,299

 

 

1,468

 

 

 

859

 

 

Income tax expense

 

(403

)

 

(525

)

 

 

(380

)

 

Minority interest expense

 

(610

)

 

(369

)

 

 

(211

)

 

INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS

 

286

 

 

574

 

 

 

268

 

 

Income (loss) from operations of discontinued businesses net of income tax benefit (expense) of $(9), $33 and $29, respectively

 

11

 

 

34

 

 

 

(59

)

 

(Loss) gain from disposal of discontinued businesses net of income tax benefit of $—, $— and $5, respectively

 

(57

)

 

 

 

 

91

 

 

INCOME BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE

 

240

 

 

608

 

 

 

300

 

 

Income from extraordinary items net of income tax expense of $—

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INCOME BEFORE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE

 

261

 

 

608

 

 

 

300

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle net of income tax benefit of $—, $2, and $—, respectively

 

 

 

(3

)

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

$

261

 

 

$

605

 

 

 

$

300

 

 

BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

$

0.44

 

 

$

0.89

 

 

 

$

0.42

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

(0.07

)

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

Extraordinary items

 

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

$

0.40

 

 

$

0.93

 

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

$

0.43

 

 

$

0.87

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

(0.07

)

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

Extraordinary items

 

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

$

0.39

 

 

$

0.91

 

 

 

$

0.46

 

 


(1)See Note 1 related to the restated consolidated financial statements

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

123




Related to Deferred Income Taxes:This amount represents the portion of deferred income taxes that are probable of recovery through future rates, based upon established regulatory practices, which permit the recovery of current taxes. Accordingly, this regulatory asset is offset by a deferred tax liability and is expected to be recovered, without interest, over the period underlying book-tax timing differences reverse and become current taxes.


Deferred Midwest ISO costs:These consist of administrative costs for transmission services and other administrative and socialized costs from IPL’s participation in the Midwest ISO market. IPL received orders from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission that granted authority for the deferral of such costs for recovery in a future base rate case.

Asset Retirement Obligation Costs:This amount represents the portion of legal asset retirement obligation costs that are probable of recovery through future rates, based upon established regulatory practices.

5.   PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT

The following table summarizes the components of the electric generation and distribution assets and the related rates of depreciation are as follows:depreciation.

 

 

Composite Rate

 

Useful Life

 

Electric Generation and Distribution Facilities

 

2.0% – 25.0%- 33.3%

 

4 –3 - 50 yrs.

 

Other Buildings

 

2.0% – 20.0%- 20%

 

- 50 yrs.

 

Leasehold improvementsImprovements

 

2.9% - 33.3%

 

- 34 yrs.

 

Furniture and Fixtures

 

3.3% - 33.3%

 

- 30 yrs.

 

 

DepreciationThe following table summarizes the depreciation expense, which is stated as a percentage of the average cost of depreciable property, plant and equipment, was, on a composite basis, 3.8%, 3.8% and 4.34% for the years endedending December 31, 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003, respectively. Interest2004.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

% of depreciable PP&E

 

3.8%

 

3.7%

 

3.6%

 

The following table summarizes interest capitalized during development and construction totaled $50 million, $48 millionfor the years ending December 31, 2006, 2005 and $115 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. 2004.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Interest capitalized during development & construction

 

 

$

49

 

 

 

$

28

 

 

 

$

36

 

 

Recoveries of liquidating damages from construction delays are recorded as a reduction in the related projects’ construction costs. Approximately $8.4 $9.4billion of property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation, was mortgaged, pledged or subject to lien as of December 31, 2005.2006.

Depreciation expense was $888 million, $823 million and $751 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

6.   INVESTMENTS IN AND ADVANCES TO AFFILIATES

US Wind Force, LLC.In September 2004,December 2006, the Company acquired an initial 15% ofsold its 33% ownership interest in US Wind Force, LLC (“US Wind”), a private company that focuses on developing wind energy projects in the United States. As of December 31, 2005, the Company’s ownership of US Wind increased to 27.55%, from 17.82% as of December 31, 2004, as additional capital contributions were made to US Wind during 2005.

Medway Power Limited.During the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company sold its 25% ownership interest in Medway Power Limited (“MPL”), a 688 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle facility located in the United Kingdom, and AES Medway Operations Limited (“AESMO”), the operating company for the facility, in an aggregate transaction valued at approximately $78 million. The sale resulted in a gain of $23 million which was recorded$1 million.

InnoVent SAS—In October 2006, the Company purchased a 40% interest in continuing operations. MPL and AESMO were previously reportedInnoVent SAS, a privately held developer of wind energy projects in France. In addition, as part of the transaction, the Company received the option to purchase a majority ownership in the contractunderlying wind farm projects at a future date.

Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo S.A.In May 2006, the Company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AES Grand Itabo, purchased an additional 25% interest in Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo S.A. (“Itabo”), a power generation segment.business located in the Dominican Republic for


approximately $23 million. Prior to May, the Company held a 25% interest in Itabo indirectly through its Gener subsidiary in Chile and had accounted for the investment using the equity method of accounting. As a result of the transaction, AES now has a 48% economic interest in Itabo, and a majority voting interest, thus requiring consolidation. Through the purchase date in May, the Company’s initial 25% share in Itabo’s net income is included in the “Equity in earnings from affiliates” line item on the consolidated income statements. Subsequent to the Company’s purchase of the additional 25% interest, Itabo is reflected as a consolidated entity included at 100% in the consolidated financial statements, with an offsetting charge to minority interest expense for the minority shareholders’ interest. The Company engaged a third-party valuation specialist to determine the purchase price allocation for the additional 25% investment. The valuation resulted in fair values of current assets and total liabilities in excess of the purchase price. Therefore, the Company recognized a $21 million after-tax extraordinary gain on the transaction in the second quarter of 2006.

Kingston Cogeneration Limited Partnership.In March 2006, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, AES Kingston Holdings, B.V., sold its 50% indirect ownership interest in Kingston Cogeneration Limited Partnership (“KCLP”), a 110 MW cogeneration plant located in Ontario, Canada. AES received $110 million in net proceeds for the sale of its investment and recognized a pre-tax gain of $87 million on the sale.

AES Barry Ltd.—In July 2003, the Company signed an amended credit agreement related to the outstanding debt of AES Barry Ltd. (Barry), a 230 MW gas-fired combined cycle power plant in the United Kingdom. Although the Company continues to maintain 100% ownership of Barry, as a result of the amended credit agreement, no material financial or operating decisions can be made without the banks’ consent, and thus the Company no longer had control over Barry. Consequently, the Company discontinued consolidating the business's results and began using the equity method to account for the unconsolidated majority-owned subsidiary.

Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais.The Company is a party to a joint venture/consortium agreement through which the Company has an equity investment in Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais (“CEMIG”), an integrated utility in Minas Gerais, Brazil. The agreement prescribes ownership and voting percentages as well as other matters. In the fourth quarter of 2002, a combination of events occurred related to the CEMIG investment. These events included consistent poor operating performance in part caused by continued depressed demand and poor asset management, the inability to adequately


service or refinance operating company debt and acquisition debt, and a continued decline in the market price of CEMIG shares. Additionally, a partner in one of the holding companies in the CEMIG ownership structure sold its interest in this holding company to an unrelated third party in December 2002 for a nominal amount. Upon evaluating these events in conjunction with each other, the Company concluded that an other than temporary decline in value of the CEMIG investment had occurred. Therefore, in December 2002, AES recorded an impairment charge related to the other than temporary decline in value of the investment in CEMIG, and the shares in CEMIG were written-down to fair market value. Additionally, AES recorded a valuation allowance against a deferred tax asset related to the CEMIG investment. The total amount of these charges, net of tax, was $587 million, of which $264 million relatesrelated to the other than temporary impairment of the investment and $323 million relatesrelated to the valuation allowance against the deferred tax asset. As a result of these charges, the Company’s investment in CEMIG, net of debt used to finance the CEMIG investment, is negative.

In the fourth quarter of 2002, AES lost voting control of one of the holding companies in the CEMIG ownership structure. This holding company indirectly owns the shares related to the CEMIG investment and indirectly holds the project financing debt related to CEMIG. As a result of the loss of voting control, AES stopped consolidating this holding company at December 31, 2002. The Company’s equity investment in CEMIG, net of debt used to finance the investment, is $(484) million at December 31, 2005.2006.

Cartagena Energia.—The Company owns 71% of a 1200 MW power plant in Cartagena, Spain completed in November 2006. The customer of the plant is the primary beneficiary due to the absorption of commodity price risk.


The financial information tabletables below excludesexclude information related to Barry and Cartagena, both unconsolidated majority-owned subsidiaries, and the CEMIG business because the Company has discontinued the application of the equity method investment in accordance with its accounting policy regarding equity investments (disclosed in Note 1). The

Both of the following tables summarize financial information (in millions) of the entities in which the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence, but does not control, and thatwhich are accounted for using the equity method.

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

Revenues

 

$

1,051

 

$

945

 

$

1,111

 

Gross Margin

 

$

332

 

$

309

 

$

370

 

Net Income

 

$

163

 

$

170

 

$

154

 

Years ended, December 31,

 

 

 

Revenues

 

Gross Margin

 

Net Income

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

2006

 

 

938

(1)

 

 

$

275

(1)

 

 

202

(1)

 

 

2005

 

 

1,051

 

 

 

332

 

 

 

163

 

 

 

2004

 

 

945

 

 

 

309

 

 

 

170

 

 

 


(1)          Includes information pertaining to KCLP through March 2006, Itabo through May 2006, and US Wind through December 2006.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

Current Assets

 

$

512

 

$

508

 

Noncurrent Assets

 

$

2,232

 

$

2,457

 

Current Liabilities

 

$

345

 

$

398

 

Noncurrent Liabilities

 

$

1,094

 

$

1,264

 

Stockholders’ Equity

 

$

1,305

 

$

1,303

 

 

 

Current
Assets

 

Noncurrent
Assets

 

Current
Liabilities

 

Noncurrent
Liabilities

 

Stockholders’
Equity

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

December 31,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006

 

 

$

374

 

 

 

$

1,846

 

 

 

$

240

 

 

 

$

913

 

 

 

$

1,067

 

 

2005

 

 

512

 

 

 

2,232

 

 

 

345

 

 

 

1,094

 

 

 

1,305

��

 

 

RelevantThe following table summarizes the relevant effective equity ownership percentages for the Company’s investments are presented below:accounted for under the equity method for the years ending December 31, 2004 through 2006.

 

 

 

December 31,

 

Affiliate

 

 

 

Country

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

 

Country

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Barry

Barry

 

United Kingdom

 

100.00

 

100.00

 

100.00

 

Cartagena

Cartagena

 

Spain

 

70.81

 

70.81

 

70.81

 

Cemig

Cemig

 

Brazil

 

9.57

 

9.57

 

9.57

 

Cemig

 

Brazil

 

9.57

 

9.57

 

9.57

 

Chigen affiliates

Chigen affiliates

 

China

 

25.00

 

25.00

 

25.00

 

Chigen affiliates

 

China

 

25.00

 

25.00

 

25.00

 

EDC affiliates

EDC affiliates

 

Venezuela

 

43.00

 

43.00

 

43.00

 

EDC affiliates

 

Venezuela

 

41.08

 

43.00

 

43.00

 

Elsta

Elsta

 

Netherlands

 

50.00

 

50.00

 

50.00

 

Elsta

 

Netherlands

 

50.00

 

50.00

 

50.00

 

Gener affiliates

Gener affiliates

 

Chile

 

49.00

 

49.00

 

49.00

 

Gener affiliates

 

Chile

 

45.60

 

49.00

 

49.00

 

InnoVent

InnoVent

 

France

 

40.00

 

 

 

Itabo

Itabo

 

Dominican Republic

 

25.00

 

25.00

 

25.00

 

Itabo

 

Dominican Republic

 

(1)

25.00

 

25.00

 

Kingston Cogen Ltd

Kingston Cogen Ltd

 

Canada

 

50.00

 

50.00

 

50.00

 

Kingston Cogen Ltd

 

Canada

 

(2)

50.00

 

50.00

 

OPGC

OPGC

 

India

 

49.00

 

49.00

 

49.00

 

OPGC

 

India

 

49.00

 

49.00

 

49.00

 

US Wind

US Wind

 

United States

 

27.55

 

17.82

 

 

US Wind

 

United States

 

(2)

27.55

 

17.82

 


(1)          Became a consolidated entity in 2nd quarter 2006 due to increased equity ownership.

The Company’s after-tax share of(2)          Investment was sold during 2006.

At December 31, 2006, retained earnings included $136 million related to the undistributed earnings of affiliates included in consolidated retained earnings was $101and distributions received from affiliates were $44 million, $81$82 million and $60$42 million at December 31,in 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, respectively. The Company charged and recognized construction revenues, management fees and interest on advances


to its affiliates, which aggregated $2 million, $7 million $6 million and $8$6 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, respectively.

In March 2006, AES’s wholly-owned subsidiary, AES Kingston Holdings, B.V., sold its indirect ownership interest in Kingston Cogeneration Limited Partnership (“KCLP”), a 110 MW cogeneration plant located in Ontario, Canada.  AES will receive approximately $110 million in proceeds for the sale of its investment.

7.   GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLES

SFAS No. 142 requires that goodwill be evaluated for impairment at a level referred to as a reporting unit. A reporting unit is an operating segment as defined by SFAS No. 131 “Disclosures, Disclosures about Segments of


an Enterprise and Related Information, or one level below an operating segment, referred to as a component. Generally, each AES business constitutes a reporting unit. Reporting units have been acquired generally in separate transactions. In the event that more than one reporting unit is acquired in a single acquisition, the fair value of each reporting unit is determined, and that fair value is allocated to the assets and liabilities of that unit. If the determined fair value of the reporting unit exceeds the amount allocated to the net assets of the reporting unit, goodwill is assigned to that reporting unit.

ChangesThe following table summarizes the changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by segment, for the years ending December 31, 2004 through 2006.

 

 

North America

 

Latin America

 

Europe & Africa

 

Asia

 

Corporate

 

 

 

 

 

Generation

 

Utilities

 

Generation

 

Utilities

 

Generation

 

Utilities

 

Generation

 

& Other

 

Total

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Carrying amount at December 31, 2004

 

 

$

133

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

907

 

 

 

$

130

 

 

 

$

204

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

24

 

 

 

$

 

 

$

1,404

 

Goodwill acquired during the period

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

 

 

35

 

Translation adjustments and other

 

 

(10

)

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

 

 

 

 

(15

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(26

)

Carrying amount at December 31, 2005

 

 

$

123

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

906

 

 

 

$

130

 

 

 

$

189

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

24

 

 

 

$

35

 

 

$

1,413

 

Translation adjustments and other

 

 

(10

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3

)

 

6

 

Carrying amount at December 31, 2006

 

 

$

113

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

906

 

 

 

$

133

 

 

 

$

205

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

24

 

 

 

$

32

 

 

$

1,419

 

For the year ended December 31, 20052006, the Company recognized goodwill impairment of $2 million. As a result of the Company’s annual goodwill impairment testing performed as of October 1st, goodwill at one of our European generation plants was determined to be impaired and 2004 aresuch balance was written off. The fair value of the reporting unit was determined by using a discounted cash flow valuation as follows (in millions):

 

 

Contract

 

Competitive

 

Regulated

 

 

 

 

 

Generation

 

Supply

 

Utilities

 

Total

 

Carrying amount at December 31, 2003

 

 

$

1,236

 

 

 

$

46

 

 

 

$

139

 

 

$

1,421

 

Translation adjustments and other

 

 

          1

 

 

 

  —

 

 

 

     (3

)

 

        (2

)

Carrying amount at December 31, 2004

 

 

  1,237

 

 

 

  46

 

 

 

  136

 

 

  1,419

 

Goodwill acquired during the period

 

 

        35

 

 

 

  —

 

 

 

     —

 

 

        35

 

Translation adjustments and other

 

 

      (26

)

 

 

  —

 

 

 

     —

 

 

      (26

)

Carrying amount at December 31, 2005

 

 

$

1,246

 

 

 

$

46

 

 

 

$

136

 

 

$

1,428

 

current quoted market prices were not available and there was not sufficient evidence that the reporting unit could be bought or sold in the market place between willing third parties. There was no impairment of goodwill during the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004. In 2003,

The following tables summarize the Company recognized goodwill impairment associated with certain acquisitions where the current fair market value of such businesses was less than the current carrying values. This primarily resulted from reductions in fair value associated with lower than expected growth in electricity consumption and lower electricity prices due in part to the significant devaluation of the local currencies relative to the original estimates made at the date of acquisition. The fair value of these businesses was estimated using the expected present value of future cash flows and comparable sales, when available.

At December 31, 2005 and 2004,balances comprising other intangibles with a gross carrying amount of $497 million and $377 million, respectively, net of accumulated amortization of $167 million and $102 million, respectively, are included in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Other intangibles primarily consist of sales concessions, software costs, transmission rights, management rights, land use rightssheets for the years ending December 31, 2006 and power purchase agreements. For2005.

Nature of intangible assets (other than Goodwill)

 

 

 

Gross Balance
as of 
December 31,
2006

 

Accumulated
Amortization
as of
December 31,
2006

 

Net Balance
as of
December 31,
2006

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Sales concessions

 

 

$

160

 

 

 

$

(58

)

 

 

$

102

 

 

Software costs

 

 

151

 

 

 

(110

)

 

 

41

 

 

All other

 

 

197

 

 

 

(35

)

 

 

162

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

$

508

 

 

 

$

(203

)

 

 

$

305

 

 

Nature of intangible assets (other than Goodwill)

 

 

 

Gross Balance
as of
December 31,
2005

 

Accumulated
Amortization
as of
December 31,
2005

 

Net Balance
as of
December 31,
2005

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Sales concessions

 

 

$

148

 

 

 

$

(46

)

 

 

$

102

 

 

Software costs

 

 

124

 

 

 

(80

)

 

 

44

 

 

All other

 

 

167

 

 

 

(29

)

 

 

138

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

$

439

 

 

 

$

(155

)

 

 

$

284

 

 

146




The following table summarizes the estimated amortization expense, broken down by intangible asset category, for 2007 through 2011.

Nature of intangible assets (other than Goodwill)

 

 

 

Estimated
amortization
expense
in 2007

 

Estimated
amortization
expense
in 2008

 

Estimated
amortization
expense
in 2009

 

Estimated
amortization
expense
in 2010

 

Estimated
amortization
expense
in 2011

 

Sales concessions

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

Software costs

 

 

18

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

4

 

 

All other

 

 

7

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

7

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

$

32

 

 

 

$

26

 

 

 

$

22

 

 

 

$

19

 

 

 

$

17

 

 

Intangible asset amortization expense was $40 million, $32 million and $15 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, therespectively. Intangible assets that are not subject to amortization expense was $34consist of emission allowances which have a carrying value of $22 million at December 31, 2006 and $17$7 million respectively. Estimated amortization expense is $32 million in 2006, $28 million in 2007, $21 million in 2008, $16 million in 2009 and $14 million in 2010.at December 31, 2005.


8.   LONG-TERM DEBT

The following table summarizes the non-recourse debt of the company at December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

NON-RECOURSE DEBT (IN MILLIONS)

 

 

 

Interest Rate(1)

 

Final Maturity

 

2005

 

2004

 

VARIABLE RATE(2):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-recourse debt

 

 

 

Interest Rate(1)

 

Final Maturity

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

VARIABLE RATE (2):

VARIABLE RATE (2):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bank loans

Bank loans

 

 

6.61

%

 

 

2022

 

 

$

4,342

 

$

5,310

 

Bank loans

 

 

6.97

%

 

 

2022

 

 

$

3,415

 

$

3,693

 

Notes and bonds

Notes and bonds

 

 

14.72

%

 

 

2023

 

 

867

 

312

 

Notes and bonds

 

 

14.65

%

 

 

2041

 

 

2,077

 

867

 

Debt to (or guaranteed by) multilateral or export credit agencies or development banks

Debt to (or guaranteed by) multilateral or export credit agencies or development banks

 

 

12.50

%

 

 

2018

 

 

538

 

745

 

Debt to (or guaranteed by) multilateral or export credit agencies or development banks

 

 

11.76

%

 

 

2013

 

 

144

 

538

 

Other

Other

 

 

11.69

%

 

 

2022

 

 

817

 

728

 

Other

 

 

8.08

%

 

 

2009

 

 

86

 

758

 

FIXED RATE:

FIXED RATE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIXED RATE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bank loans

Bank loans

 

 

7.47

%

 

 

2024

 

 

268

 

276

 

Bank loans

 

 

8.37

%

 

 

2023

 

 

358

 

268

 

Commercial paper

Commercial paper

 

 

10.46

%

 

 

2006

 

 

5

 

26

 

Commercial paper

 

 

6.35

%

 

 

2007

 

 

35

 

5

 

Notes and bonds

Notes and bonds

 

 

8.83

%

 

 

2034

 

 

5,144

 

5,269

 

Notes and bonds

 

 

8.51

%

 

 

2036

 

 

5,341

 

5,144

 

Debt to (or guaranteed by) multilateral or export credit agencies or development banks

Debt to (or guaranteed by) multilateral or export credit agencies or development banks

 

 

10.57

%

 

 

2014

 

 

583

 

536

 

Debt to (or guaranteed by) multilateral or export credit agencies or development banks

 

 

9.72

%

 

 

2012

 

 

20

 

583

 

Other

Other

 

 

8.17

%

 

 

2017

 

 

260

 

234

 

Other

 

 

4.89

%

 

 

2024

 

 

79

 

229

 

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12,824

 

13,436

 

SUBTOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

11,555

 

$

12,085

 

Less: Current maturities

Less: Current maturities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1,598

)

(1,619

)

Less: Current maturities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1,453

)

(1,447

)

TOTAL

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

11,226

 

$

11,817

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

10,102

 

$

10,638

 


(1)          Weighted average interest rate at December 31, 2005.2006.

(2)          The Company has interest rate swaps and interest rate collaroption agreements in an aggregate notional principal amount of approximately $3$2.5 billion at December 31, 2005.2006. The swap agreements economically change the variable interest rates on the portion of the debt covered by the notional amounts to fixed rates ranging from approximately 3.22%3.78% to 7.49%. The collaroption agreements fix interest rates within a range from 5.44%4.51% to 7.0%7.00%. The agreements expire at various dates from 20062007 through 2023.

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

RECOURSE DEBT (IN MILLIONS)

 

 

 

Interest Rate(1)

 

Final Maturity

 

2005

 

2004

 

Senior Secured Term Loan

 

LIBOR + 2.25%

 

2011

 

$

 

$

200

 

Senior Secured Term Loan

 

LIBOR + 1.75%

 

2011

 

200

 

 

Second Priority Senior Secured Notes

 

8.75% – 9.00%

 

2013 – 2015

 

1,800

 

1,800

 

Senior Unsecured Notes

 

7.75% – 9.50%

 

2008 – 2014

 

2,046

 

2,064

 

Senior Subordinated Notes

 

8.33% – 8.88%

 

2007 – 2027

 

115

 

227

 

Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures

 

6.0% – 6.75%

 

2008 – 2029

 

731

 

872

 

Unamortized discounts

 

 

 

 

 

(10

)

(11

)

SUBTOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

4,882

 

5,152

 

Less: Current maturities(2)

 

 

 

 

 

(200

)

(142

)

Total

 

 

 

 

 

$

4,682

 

$

5,010

 


The following table summarizes the recourse debt of the company at December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

RECOURSE DEBT

 

 

 

Interest Rate

 

Final Maturity

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Senior Secured Term Loan

 

LIBOR + 1.75%

 

 

2011

 

 

$

200

 

$

200

 

Second Priority Senior Secured Notes

 

8.75% – 9.00%

 

 

2013 – 2015

 

 

1,800

 

1,800

 

Senior Unsecured Notes

 

7.75% – 9.50%

 

 

2008 – 2014

 

 

2,066

 

2,046

 

Senior Subordinated Debentures

 

8.875%

 

 

2027

 

 

 

115

 

Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures

 

6.0% – 6.75%

 

 

2008 – 2029

 

 

731

 

731

 

Unamortized discounts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(7

)

(10

)

SUBTOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

4,790

 

$

4,882

 

Less: Current maturities (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(200

)

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

4,790

 

$

4,682

 


(1)          Interest rate at December 31, 2005. Weighted average LIBOR rates at December 31, 2005 and 2004 were 3.63% and 2.10%, respectively.

(2)          Senior Secured Term Loan was classified as a current maturity as of December 31, 2005, because the loan was in default as of March 31, 2006.

NON-RECOURSE DEBT—Non-recourse debt borrowings are not a direct obligation of AES, the parent corporation, and are primarily collateralized by the capital stock of the relevant subsidiary and in certain cases the physical assets of, and all significant agreements associated with, such business. These


non-recourse financings include structured project financings, acquisition financings, working capital facilities and all other consolidated debt of the subsidiaries.

In October 2004, AES signed an assignment and release agreement with the lenders of La Plata Partners, a holding company of Edelap, a subsidiary located in Argentina. Under the agreement, the lenders agreed to sell and assign to AES all of their rights, title, interests and obligations under the loan documents. On November 2, 2004, AES paid $17 million to the original lenders to settle the outstanding principal and accrued interest. The debt extinguishment resulted in a pre-tax gain of approximately $64 million in the fourth quarter of 2004, which is included in other income in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

The terms of the Company’s non-recourse debt, which is debt held at subsidiaries, include certain financial and non-financial covenants. These covenants are limited to subsidiary activity and vary among the subsidiaries. These covenants may include but are not limited to maintenance of certain reserves, minimum levels of working capital and limitations on incurring additional indebtedness. Compliance with certain covenants may not be objectively determinable.

SubsidiaryThe following table summarizes the Company’s subsidiary non-recourse debt in default as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004 is as follows (in millions):2005.

 

Primary Nature 

 

December 31, 2005

 

December 31,

 

 

Primary Nature

 

December 31, 2006

 

December 31, 2005

 

Subsidiary

 

 

 

of Default

 

Default

 

Net Assets(1)

 

2004

 

 

 

 

of Default

 

Default

 

Net Assets

 

Default

 

Net Assets

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Eden/Edes

Eden/Edes

 

Payment

 

 

$

98

 

 

 

$

(17

)

 

 

$

98

 

 

Eden/Edes

 

Payment

 

 

$

87

 

 

 

$

(74

)

 

 

$

98

 

 

 

$

(17

)

 

Hefei

Hefei

 

Payment

 

 

4

 

 

 

23

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

26

 

 

Kelanitissa (1)

Kelanitissa (1)

 

Covenant

 

 

61

 

 

 

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tisza II (2)

Tisza II (2)

 

Material adverse change

 

 

93

 

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ekibastuz

Ekibastuz

 

Covenant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

68

 

 

Parana

Parana

 

Material adverse change

 

 

33

 

 

 

(77

)

 

 

53

 

 

Parana

 

Material adverse change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

 

 

 

(77

)

 

Hefei

 

Payment

 

 

4

 

 

 

26

 

 

 

4

 

 

Los Mina

 

Payment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24

 

 

Andres

 

Payment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

 

 

Ekibastuz

 

Covenant

 

 

3

 

 

 

68

 

 

 

 

 

Total

Total

 

 

 

 

$

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

291

 

 


(1)          Net assets are presented onlyKelanitissa is in violation of a covenant under its $65 million credit facility because of a cross default to a material agreement for those subsidiaries with securedthe plant.  The outstanding debt in default at December 31, 2005.

Andres and Los Mina, both electricity generation companies which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company located in the Dominican Republic, entered into forbearance agreements with their respective lenders in December 2004. Pursuant to the forbearance agreements, the lenders agreed not to exercise any remedies under the respective credit agreements. The forbearance agreements for Andres and Los Mina expired on July 29, 2005 and June 10, 2005, respectively. Subsequently, in December 2005, AES Dominicana Energia Finance, S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, issued a $160 million Senior Secured Corporate Bond in the international capital markets under Rule 144A/Regulation S. The 10-year notes, with final maturity in December 2015, were priced to yield 11%. The net proceeds of the issuance were used to retire the current bank debt at both Andres and Los Mina of $112 million and $24 million, respectively. Asbalance as of December 31, 2005,2006 was $61 million.

(2)          Tisza II is in default as a consequence of the debt default for bothre-introduction of these subsidiaries was cured and new debt reported as long-termadministrative price regulation in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.Hungary.

None of the subsidiaries that are currently in default are owned by subsidiaries that currently meet the applicable definition of materiality inis a material subsidiary under AES’s corporate debt agreements in order for such defaults to trigger an event of default or permit an acceleration under such indebtedness. However, as a result of additional dispositions of assets, other significant reductions in asset


carrying values or other matters in the future that may impact our financial position and results of operations, it is possible that one or more of these subsidiaries could fall within the definition of a “material subsidiary” and thereby upon an acceleration trigger an event of default and possible acceleration of the indebtedness under the AES parent company’s outstanding debt securities.

122




Principal payments required on non-recourse debt outstanding at December 31, 2005,2006, are $1,598 million in 2006, $1,032$1,453 million in 2007, $1,286$1,071 million in 2008, $931$686 million in 2009, $1,283$1,098 million in 2010, $932 million in 2011 and $6,694$6,315 million thereafter.

As of December 31, 2005,2006, several AES subsidiaries had approximately $126$383 million of unused lines of credit available mainly as working capital facilities.

As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and 2004, approximately $629$761 million and $758$602 million, respectively, of restricted cash was maintained in accordance with certain covenants of the debt agreements, and these amounts were included within Restricted Cash and Debt Service Reserves and Other Deposits in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Various lender and governmental provisions restrict the ability of the Company’s subsidiaries to transfer their net assets to the parent company. Such restricted net assets of subsidiaries amounted to approximately $4.4 $4.6billion at December 31, 2005.2006.

RECOURSE DEBT—Recourse debt obligations are direct borrowings of the AES parent corporation.

On June 1, 2005,March 3, 2006, the Company redeemed all of its outstanding 8.5%8.875% Senior Subordinated NotesDebentures due 2007,2027 (approximately $115 million aggregate principal amount). The redemption was made pursuant to the optional redemption provisions of the indenture governing the Debentures. The Debentures were redeemed at a redemption price equal to 100% of 101.417%, and an aggregatethe principal amount thereof, plus a make-whole premium determined in accordance with the terms of approximately $112 million.the indenture, plus accrued and unpaid interest up to the redemption date.

The Company entered into a $500 million senior unsecured credit facility agreement effective March 31, 2006. On June 23, 2005,May 1, 2006, the Company amendedexercised its $450option to extend the total amount of the senior unsecured credit facility by an additional $100 million Senior Secured Bank Facilities. The interest rate on the $450 million Revolving Bank Loan was reduced to the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 1.75%. Previously, the rate was LIBOR plus 2.5%. In addition, the Revolving Bank Loan maturity was extended from 2007 to 2010. The interest rate on the term $200 million Senior Secured Term Loan was also reduced to LIBOR plus 1.75%, from LIBOR plus 2.25%, while its maturity in 2011 remains unchanged. On September 30, 2005, the Company upsized the Revolving Bank Loan to a total commitment amount of $650 million from $450$600 million. At December 31, 2005,2006, the Company had $294no outstanding borrowings under the senior unsecured credit facility. The Company had $373 million of letters of credit outstanding and $356 million available under the $650 million Revolving Bank Loan. As of March 31, 2006, the Company is in default under its senior bank credit facility due to the restatement of its 2003 consolidated financial statements. As a result, the debt underagainst the senior bankunsecured credit facility has been classified as current on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005.  In addition, the Company needs2006. The credit facility is being used to obtainsupport our ongoing share of construction obligations for AES Maritza East 1 and for general corporate purposes. AES Maritza East 1 is a waiver of this default and an amendment of the representation relating to our 2003 consolidated financial statements before the Company will be able to borrow additional funds under its revolving credit facility. The Company expects to obtain the amendment and waivercoal-fired generation project that began construction in the near term.second quarter of 2006.

On August 15, 2005, the Company repaid at maturity all outstanding 4.5% Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures (“the Debentures”) at par for an aggregate principal amount of $142 million.

During the first half of 2005, the Company also funded the purchase of the SeaWest wind development business and posted letters of credit to support ongoing construction and operating activities.

Senior Secured Bank FacilitiesThe Company’s senior secured bank facilities (“Bank Facilities”) include the Senior Secured Term Loansenior secured term loan (“Term Loan”) of $200 million and a senior secured revolving credit facility (“Revolving Bank LoanCredit Facility”) with available borrowing up to $650$750 million. TheAs of December 31, 2006, the Revolving Bank Loan matures in 2010 andCredit Facility accrues interest accrues at LIBOR plus 1.75%.1.50% and matures in 2010.

In December 2006, the Company exercised its right to increase the Revolving Credit Facility by $100 million to a total of $750 million. As of December 31, 2006, there were no outstanding borrowings against the revolving credit facility. The Company had $88 million of letters of credit outstanding against the Revolving Credit Facility and $662 million was available under the revolving credit facility.

Principal payments required on recourse debt outstanding at December 31, 2005,2006 are $200 million in 2006, $415 million in 2008, $467 million in 2009, $423 million in 2010, $674 million in 2011and $3,377 million$2.8 billion thereafter.

Certain of the Company’s obligations under the Bank Facilities are guaranteed by its direct subsidiaries through which the Company owns its interests in the Shady Point, Hawaii, Warrior Run and


Eastern Energy businesses. The Company’s obligations under the Bank Facilities and Second Priority Senior Secured Notes are, subject to certain exceptions, substantially secured by:

(i)            all of the capital stock of domestic subsidiaries owned directly by the Company and 65% of the capital stock of certain foreign


subsidiaries owned directly or indirectly by the Company,Company; and

(ii)        certain intercompany receivables, certain intercompany notes and certain intercompany tax sharing agreements.

The Bank Facilities are subject to mandatory prepayment as follows:

·       Net cash proceeds from sales of assets of or equity interests in IPALCO, a Guarantor or any of their subsidiaries must be applied pro rata to repay the Term Loan using 60% of net cash proceeds, provided that the 60% shall be reduced to 50% when and if the parent’s recourse debt to cash flow ratio is less than 5:1 and further provided that Lenders shall have the option to waive their pro rata redemption. In the case of sales of assets of or equity interests in IPALCO or any of its subsidiaries, asset sale net cash proceeds remaining after application to the Term Loan facility shall be used to reduce commitments under the Revolver, unless the supermajority of banks otherwise agree or unless the facilities are rated at least Ba1 from Moody’s and AES’s corporate credit rating is at least BB- from S&P.

·       Net cash proceeds from the issuance of bridge debt by the parent must be offered to repay the Term Loan. With respect to the net cash proceeds from the issuance of debt by IPALCO or any Guarantor after $200 million of additional debt incurred after June 23, 2005 and the issuance of debt by any AES subsidiary the proceeds of which are not used for specified purposes, the creditor’s portion of such net cash proceeds must be applied pro rata to repay the Term Loan. Lenders shall have the option to accept or refuse such prepayment.

The Bank Facilities contain customary covenants and restrictions on the Company’s ability to engage in certain activities, including, but not limited to:

·       limitations on other indebtedness, liens, investments and guarantees;

·       restrictions on dividends and redemptions and payments of unsecured and subordinated debt and the use of proceeds;

·       restrictions on mergers and acquisitions, sales of assets, leases, transactions with affiliates and off balance sheet and derivative arrangements;

·       maintenance of certain financial ratios; and

·       timely filing of reports to the Securitiesfinancial and Exchange Commission with the lenders (of which the Company had defaults with respect to its Forms 10-Q for the quarter periods ended June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005).other reporting requirements.

The Bank Facilities also contain financial covenants requiring the Company to maintain certain financial ratios including:

·       cash flow to interest coverage ratio, calculated quarterly, which provides that a minimum ratio of the Company’s adjusted operating cash flow to the Company’s interest charges related to recourse debt must be maintained at all times; and

·       recourse debt to cash flow ratio, calculated quarterly, which provides that the ratio of the Company’s total recourse debt to the Company’s adjusted operating cash flow must not exceed a maximum at any time of calculation; and future borrowings and letter of credit issuances under the senior secured credit facilitiesBank Facilities will be subject to customary borrowing conditions, including the absence of an event of default and the absence of any material adverse change.change since December 31, 2003.

The terms of the Company’s Second Priority Senior Secured Notes, Senior Unsecured Notes and Senior Subordinated Notes contain certain restrictive covenants, including limitations on the Company’s ability to incur additional secured debt, pay dividends to stockholders, repurchase capital stock or make other restricted payments, incur additional liens, provide guaranteessell assets, enter into transactions with affiliates and enter into sale and leaseback transactions.


On March 3, 2006, the Company redeemed all of its outstanding 8.875% Senior Subordinated Debentures due 2027 (approximately $115 million aggregate principal amount). The redemption was made pursuant to the optional redemption provisions of the indenture governing the Debentures. The Debentures were redeemed at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus a make-whole premium determined in accordance with the terms of the indenture, plus accruedCompany’s Senior Unsecured Notes contain certain covenants including, without limitation, limitation on the Company’s ability to incur liens and unpaid interest up to the redemption date.

On March 31, 2006, AES enteredenter into a $600 million senior unsecured credit facility agreement with a maturity date of March 31, 2010. The credit facility is a syndicated loansale and letter of credit facility lead arranged by Merrill Lynch.  The credit facility will be used for general corporate purposes and to provide letters of credit to support AES’s investment commitment as well as the underlying funding for the equity portion of its investment in AES Maritza East 1 on an intermediate-term basis. AES Maritza East 1 is a coal-fired generation project that is expected to begin construction soon. Additional non-recourse financing has been committed to begin construction of AES Maritza East 1.leaseback transactions.

TERM CONVERTIBLE TRUST SECURITIES—During 1999, AES Trust III, a wholly owned special purpose business trust, issued 9 million of $3.375 Term Convertible Preferred Securities (“TECONS”) (liquidation value $50) for total proceeds of approximately $518 million and concurrently purchased


approximately $518 million of 6.75% Junior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2029 (individually,(the “6.75% Debentures” of the 6.75% Debentures)Company).

During 2000, AES Trust VII, a wholly owned special purpose business trust, issued 9.2 million of $3.00 TECONS (liquidation value $50) for total proceeds of approximately $460 million and concurrently purchased approximately $460 million of 6% Junior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2008 (individually, the 6% Debentures(the “6% Debentures” and collectively with the 6.75% Debentures, the Junior“Junior Subordinated Debentures)Debentures”). The sole assets of AES Trust III and VII (collectively, the “TECON Trusts”) are the Junior Subordinated Debentures.

AES, at its option, can redeem the 6.75% Debentures which would result in the required redemption of the TECONS issued by AES Trust III, currently for $50.84$50.42 per TECON, reduced annually by $0.422 to a minimum of $50 per TECON. AES, at its option can redeem the 6% Debentures which would result in the required redemption of the TECONS issued by AES Trust VII, for $51.13$50.75 per TECONS as of December 31, 2006, reduced annually by $0.375 to a minimum of $50 per TECON. The TECONS must be redeemed upon maturity of the Junior Subordinated Debentures.

The TECONS are convertible into the common stock of AES at each holder’s option prior to October 15, 2029 for AES Trust III and May 14, 2008 for AES Trust VII at the rate of 1.4216 and 1.0811 respectively, representing a conversion price of $35.171 and $46.25 per share, respectively.

Dividends on the TECONS are payable quarterly at an annual rate of 6.75% by AES Trust III and 6% by AES Trust VII. The Trusts are each permitted to defer payment of dividends for up to 20 consecutive quarters, provided that the Company has exercised its right to defer interest payments under the corresponding debentures or notes. During such deferral periods, dividends on the TECONS would accumulate quarterly and accrue interest, and the Company may not declare or pay dividends on its common stock.

AES Trust III and AES Trust VII are variable interest entities under FASB Interpretation No. 46, “ConsolidationConsolidation of Variable Interest Entities—An Interpretation of ARB No. 51”51 (“FIN 46”). AES is not the primary beneficiary of either AES Trust III or AES Trust VII and accordingly, does not consolidate their results. AES’s obligations under the Junior Subordinated Debentures and other relevant trust agreements, in aggregate, constitute a full and unconditional guarantee by AES of the TECON Trusts’ obligations under the trust securities issued by each respective trust.


9.   DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS

AES utilizes derivative financial instruments to hedge interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk and commodity price risk. The Company utilizes interest rate swap, cap and floor agreements to hedge interest rate risk on floating rate debt. The majorityMost of AES’s interest rate derivatives are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges. Currency forward, optionforwards, options and swap agreements are utilized by the Company to hedge foreign exchange risk. The Company utilizes electric and gasfuel derivative instruments, including swaps, options, forwards and futures, to hedge the risk related to electricity and gas sales and fuel purchases. The majorityMost of AES’s electric and gasfuel derivatives are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges.

Certain derivatives are not designated as hedging instruments, primarily because they do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment as defined by SFAS No. 133. The purpose of these instruments is to economically hedge interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk or commodity price risk. However, certain features of these contracts, primarily the inclusion of written options, cause them to not qualify for hedge accounting.


Amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss, after income taxes, during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003,2004, respectively are as follows (in millions):follows:

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

Balance, beginning of year

 

$

(334

)

$

(270

)

$

(410

)

Reclassification to earnings

 

179

 

126

 

124

 

Reclassification upon sale or disposal

 

 

12

 

130

 

Change in fair value

 

(250

)

(202

)

(114

)

Balance, December 31

 

$

(405

)

$

(334

)

$

(270

)

December 31,

 

 

 

Balance,
beginning
of year

 

Reclassification
to earnings

 

Reclassification
upon sale
or disposal

 

Change in
fair value

 

Balance,
December 31

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

2006

 

 

$

(400

)

 

 

$

(6

)

 

 

$

(3

)

 

 

$

283

 

 

 

$

(126

)

 

2005

 

 

(325

)

 

 

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

(228

)

 

 

(400

)

 

2004

 

 

(291

)

 

 

88

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

(134

)

 

 

(325

)

 

 

Approximately $128$29 million of the accumulated other comprehensive loss related to derivative instruments as of December 31, 20052006 is expected to be recognized as a reductionan increase to income from continuing operations over the next twelve months. This estimate includes an estimated loss of $1 million, a gain of $38 million and a loss of $8 million related to foreign currency, commodity and interest rate instruments, respectively.  The balance in accumulated other comprehensive loss related to derivative transactions will be reclassified into earnings as interest expense is recognized for hedges of interest rate risk, as depreciation is recorded for hedges of capitalized interest, as foreign currency transaction and translation gains and losses are recognized for hedges of foreign currency exposure, and as electric and gas sales and purchases are recognized for hedges of forecasted electric and gasfuel transactions.

The maximum length of time over which AES is hedging its exposure to variability in future cash flows for forecasted transactions, excluding forecasted transactions related to the payment of variable interest on existing financial instruments, is 2524 years. For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003,2004, gains (losses) of $1$3 million, $(11) million$0, and $(14)$(7) million, respectively, were reclassified into earnings as a result of the discontinuance of a cash flow hedge because it was probable that the forecasted transaction would not occur. For the years ended December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005 no fair value hedges were discontinued. For the year ended December 31, 2002, two fair value hedges were discontinued because they failed to meet the hedge effectiveness criteriaThe Company recognized after-tax gains of SFAS No. 133. The discontinuance of hedge accounting for these contracts did not have an impact on earnings.

For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, the impacts of changes in derivative fair value, net of income taxes, primarily related to derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, were charges of $6$18 million, $44$20 million, and $38 million respectively. These amounts include a net gain of $20 million, $2 million after income taxes, and net charges of $12 million after income taxes, related to the ineffective portion of derivatives qualifying as cash flow and fair value hedges for each of the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003,2004, respectively. The ineffective portion is primarily recordedrecognized as interest income or expense for interest rate hedges, foreign currency gains or losses on foreign currency hedges, and non-regulated revenue or non-regulated cost of sales for commodity hedges.

After-tax losses related to the changes in fair value of derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting were $12 million, $69 million and $17 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The after-tax losses include embedded foreign currency derivatives, interest rate swaps and options, and embedded commodity derivatives. Gains or losses on derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting are recognized as interest income or expense for interest rate derivatives, foreign currency gains or losses on foreign currency derivatives, and revenue or cost of sales for commodity derivatives. As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, derivative liabilities included in other expense.current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets were $68 million and $283 million, respectively.


10.   COMMITMENTS   COMMITMENTS

OPERATING LEASES—As of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company was obligated under long-term non-cancelable operating leases, primarily for office rental and site leases. Rental expense for lease commitments under these operating leases excluding amounts related to the sale/leaseback discussed below, was $12 million, $10 million and $13 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $17 million, $12 million and 2003,$10 million, respectively.


The table below sets forth the future minimum lease commitments under these operating leases are as follows (in millions) at December 31, 2005:2006 for 2007 through 2011 and thereafter:

2006

 

$

12

 

December 31,

 

 

 

Future
Commitments
for Operating
Leases

 

 

(in millions)

 

2007

 

11

 

2007

 

 

$

17

 

 

2008

 

11

 

2008

 

 

16

 

 

2009

 

9

 

2009

 

 

14

 

 

2010

 

11

 

2010

 

 

11

 

 

2011

2011

 

 

11

 

 

Thereafter

 

92

 

Thereafter

 

 

109

 

 

Total

 

$

146

 

Total

 

 

$

178

 

 

 

CAPITAL LEASESOne of AES’s subsidiaries, AES Indian Queens Power Limited in the United Kingdom, conducts a major part of its operations from leased facilities. The plant lease is for 25 years expiring in 2022. In addition, severalSeveral AES subsidiaries lease operating and office equipment and vehicles. These leases have been recorded as capital leases in Property, Plant and Equipment within “Electric generation and distribution assets.”  Gross valuesThe gross value of the leased assets are $52for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 was $13 million and $55$9 million, as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The following table is a schedule by years of future minimum lease payments under capital leases together with the present value of the net minimum lease payments as ofat December 31, 2005 (in millions):2006 for 2007 through 2011 and thereafter:

2006

 

$

5

 

December 31,

 

 

 

Future
Minimum
Lease
Payments

 

 

(in millions)

 

2007

 

5

 

2007

 

 

$

4

 

 

2008

 

4

 

2008

 

 

3

 

 

2009

 

4

 

2009

 

 

2

 

 

2010

 

3

 

2010

 

 

1

 

 

2011

2011

 

 

 

 

Thereafter

 

54

 

Thereafter

 

 

 

 

Total minimum lease payments

 

75

 

Total

Total

 

 

10

 

 

Less: Imputed interest

 

(31

)

Less: Imputed interest

 

 

2

 

 

Present value of total minimum lease payments

 

$

44

 

Present value of total minimum lease payments

 

 

$

8

 

 

SALE/LEASEBACK—In May 1999, a subsidiary of the Company acquired six electric generating stations from New York State Electric and Gas (“NYSEG”). Concurrently, the subsidiary sold two of the plants to an unrelated third party for $666 million and simultaneously entered into a leasing arrangement with the unrelated party. This transaction has been accounted for as a sale/leaseback with operating lease treatment. Rental expense was $54 million infor each of the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003.2004.


In connection withThe following table summarizes the lease of the two power plants, the subsidiary is required to maintain a rent reserve account equal to the maximum semi-annual payment with respect to the sum of the basic rent (other then deferrable basic rent) and fixed charges expected to become due in the immediately succeeding three-year period. At December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, the amount deposited in the rent reserve account approximated $32 million. This amount is included in restricted cash and can only be utilized to satisfy lease obligations. Futurefuture minimum lease commitments are as follows (in millions)under sale/leaseback arrangements at December 31, 2005:2006 for 2007 through 2011 and thereafter:

2006

 

$

61

 

December 31,

 

 

 

Future
Minimum
Lease
Commitments

 

 

(in millions)

 

2007

 

62

 

2007

 

 

$

63

 

 

2008

 

63

 

2008

 

 

63

 

 

2009

 

63

 

2009

 

 

63

 

 

2010

 

65

 

2010

 

 

65

 

 

2011

2011

 

 

69

 

 

Thereafter

 

1,062

 

Thereafter

 

 

993

 

 

Total minimum lease payments

 

$

1,376

 

Total

Total

 

 

$

1,316

 

 

The lease agreements require the subsidiary to maintain an additional liquidity account. The required balance in the additional liquidity account was initially equal to the greater of $65 million less the balance in the rent reserve account, or $29 million. As of December 31, 2005, the subsidiary had fulfilled its obligation to fund the additional liquidity account by establishing a letter of credit issued by Bank of America (formerly Fleet Bank) in the stated amount of approximately $36 million. This letter of credit was established by AES for the benefit of the subsidiary. However, the subsidiary is obligated to replenish or replace this letter of credit in the event it is drawn upon or needs to be replaced.

CONTRACTS—Operating subsidiaries of the Company have entered into contracts for the purchase of electricity from third parties. Purchases in the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 2004 and 20032004 were approximately $1.2 billion, $1.1 billion $1.0 billion and $1.1$1.0 billion, respectively.

The table below sets forth the future commitments under these electricity purchase contracts are as follows (in millions) at December 31, 2005:2006 for 2007 through 2011 and thereafter.

2006

 

$

1,088

 

December 31,

 

 

 

Commitments
for Electricity
Purchase
Contracts

 

 

(in millions)

 

2007

 

1,165

 

2007

 

 

$

1,430

 

 

2008

 

1,247

 

2008

 

 

1,603

 

 

2009

 

1,329

 

2009

 

 

1,601

 

 

2010

 

1,437

 

2010

 

 

1,771

 

 

2011

2011

 

 

1,797

 

 

Thereafter

 

1,543

 

Thereafter

 

 

15,187

 

 

Total

 

$

7,809

 

Total

 

 

$23,389

 

 

 

Operating subsidiaries of the Company have entered into various long-term contracts for the purchase of fuel subject to termination only in certain limited circumstances. Purchases in the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 and 2003 were approximately$644 million, $577 million and $510 million, and $218 million, respectively.


The table below sets forth the future commitments under these fuel contracts are as follows (in millions):of December 31, 2006 for 2007 through 2011 and thereafter.

2006

 

$

803

 

December 31,

 

 

 

Future
Commitments
for Fuel
Contracts

 

 

(in millions)

 

2007

 

627

 

2007

 

 

$

1,020

 

 

2008

 

642

 

2008

 

 

1,047

 

 

2009

 

531

 

2009

 

 

855

 

 

2010

 

451

 

2010

 

 

796

 

 

2011

2011

 

 

758

 

 

Thereafter

 

4,551

 

Thereafter

 

 

6,033

 

 

Total

 

$

7,605

 

Total

 

 

$10,509

 

 

 

Beginning in 2003, several of theThe Company’s subsidiaries entered into other various long-term contracts. These contracts are mainly for a compliance construction project, minimumprojects, service and maintenance, payments, transmission of electricity and other operation services. Purchases in

154




The table below sets forth the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 were approximately $78 million, $53 million and $102 million, respectively.

The future commitments under these other purchase contracts are as follows (in millions):of December 31, 2006 for 2007 through 2011 and thereafter.

2006

 

$

144

 

December 31,

 

 

 

Future 
Commitments 
for Other Purchase 
Contracts

 

 

(in millions)

 

2007

 

79

 

2007

 

 

$

1,234

 

 

2008

 

54

 

2008

 

 

697

 

 

2009

 

53

 

2009

 

 

361

 

 

2010

 

55

 

2010

 

 

147

 

 

2011

2011

 

 

116

 

 

Thereafter

 

448

 

Thereafter

 

 

819

 

 

Total

 

$

833

 

Total

 

 

$

3,374

 

 

 

11.   CONTINGENCIES   CONTINGENCIES

ENVIRONMENTAL—The Company reviews its obligations as they relate to compliance with environmental laws, including site restoration and remediation. As of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company has recorded liabilities of $12$12.8 million for projected environmental remediation costs. Because ofDue to the uncertainties associated with environmental assessment and remediation activities, future costs of compliance or remediation could be higher or lower than the amount currently accrued. Based on currently available information and analysis, the Company believes that it is possible that costs associated with such liabilities or as yet unknown liabilities may exceed current reserves in amounts that could be material but cannot be estimated as of December 31, 2005.2006.


GUARANTEES, LETTERS OF CREDIT—In connection with certain of its project financing, acquisition, and power purchase agreements, AES has expressly undertaken limited obligations and commitments, most of which will only be effective or will be terminated upon the occurrence of future events. In the normal course of business, AES and certain of its subsidiaries enter into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain subsidiaries. Such agreements include guarantees, letters of credit and surety bonds. These agreements are entered into primarily to support or enhance the creditworthiness otherwise achieved by a subsidiary on a stand-alone basis, thereby facilitating the availability of sufficient credit to accomplish the subsidiaries’ intended business purposes.

The following table summarizes the company’s contingent contractual obligations as of December 31, 2006.

Contingent contractual obligations

 

 

 

Amount

 

Number of
Agreements

 

Maximum
Exposure Range
for Each
Agreement

 

 

Amount

 

Number of 
Agreements

 

Exposure 
Range for 
Each 
Agreement

 

 

(amounts in millions, except agreements and years)

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Guarantees

Guarantees

 

 

$

507

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

<$1 – $100

 

 

 

 

$

533

 

 

 

32

 

 

<$1 - $100

 

Letters of credit—under the Revolving Bank Loan

 

 

294

 

 

 

18

 

 

 

<$1 – $ 74

 

 

Surety bonds

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

$1

 

 

Letters of credit — under the Revolving Credit Facility

 

 

88

 

 

 

12

 

 

<$1 - $26

 

Letters of credit — under the Senior Unsecured Credit Facility

 

 

373

 

 

 

8

 

 

<$1 - $333

 

Surety Bonds

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

$

1

 

Total

Total

 

 

$

802

 

 

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

995

 

 

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the contingent obligations primarily represent future performance commitments which the Company expects to fulfill within the normal course of business. Amounts presented in the above table represent the Company’s current undiscounted exposure to guarantees and the range of maximum


undiscounted potential exposure to the Company as of December 31, 2005.2006. Guarantee termination provisions vary from less than 1 year to greater than 20 years. Some result from the end of a contract period, assignment, asset sale, and change in credit rating or elapsed time. The amounts above include obligations made by the Company for the benefit of the lenders associated with the non-recourse debt of subsidiaries of $110$102 million.

The risks associated with these obligations include change of control, construction cost overruns, political risk, tax indemnities, spot market power prices, supplier support and liquidated damages under power purchase agreements for projects in development, under construction and operating. While the Company does not expect to be required to fund any material amounts under these contingent contractual obligations during 20062007 or beyond that are not recorded on the balance sheet, many of the events which would give rise to such an obligation are beyond the Company’s control. There can be no assurance that the Company would have adequate sources of liquidity to fund its obligations under these contingent contractual obligations if it were required to make substantial payments thereunder.

The Company pays letter of credit fees ranging from 0.15%1.63% to 2.75%2.64% per annum on the outstanding amounts.

In addition, several AES subsidiaries obtained letters of credit to guarantee certain requirements under debt or PPA agreements. As of December 31, 2005, $207 million2006, $1.5 billion in letters of credit were outstanding.

130




LITIGATION—The Company is involved in certain claims, suits and legal proceedings in the normal course of business. The Company has accrued for litigation and claims where it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based upon information it currently possesses and taking into account established reserves for estimated liabilities and its insurance coverage, that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and actions is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial statements. It is possible however, that some matters could be decided unfavorably to the Company, and could require the Company to pay damages or to make expenditures in amounts that could be material but cannot be estimated as of December 31, 2005.2006.

In 1989, Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S.A. (“Eletrobrás”) filed suit in the Fifth District Court in the State of Rio de Janeiro against Eletropaulo Eletricidade de São Paulo S.A. (“EEDSP”) relating to the methodology for calculating monetary adjustments under the parties’ financing agreement. In April 1999, the Fifth District Court found for Eletrobrás and, in September 2001, Eletrobrás initiated an execution suit in the Fifth District Court to collect approximately R$762 million (US$365 million) from Eletropaulo and a lesser amount from an unrelated company, Companhia de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica Paulista (“CTEEP”) (Eletropaulo and CTEEP were spun off of EEDSP pursuant to its privatization in 1998). Eletropaulo appealed and, in September 2003, the Appellate Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro ruled that Eletropaulo was not a proper party to the litigation because any alleged liability was transferred to CTEEP pursuant to the privatization. Subsequently, both Eletrobrás and CTEEP filed separate appeals to the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”). In June 2006, the SCJ reversed the Appellate Court’s decision and remanded the case to the Fifth District Court for further proceedings, holding that Eletropaulo’s liability, if any, should be determined by the Fifth District Court. Eletropaulo subsequently filed a motion for clarification of that decision, which was denied in February 2007. In April 2007 Eletropaulo filed appeals with the Special Court (the highest court within the SCJ) and the Supreme Court of Brazil. Eletrobras may resume the execution suit in the Fifth District Court at any time. If Eletrobras does so, Eletropaulo may be required to provide security in the amount of its alleged liability. Eletropaulo believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In September 1999, a Brazilianstate appellate state court ofin Minas Gerais, Brazil, granted a temporary injunction suspending the effectiveness of a shareholders’ agreement between Southern Electric Brasil Participacoes, Ltda. (“SEB”) and the state of Minas Gerais concerning CEMIG. AES’Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais


(“CEMIG”), an integrated utility in Minas Gerais. The Company’s investment in CEMIG is through SEB. This shareholders’ agreement granted SEB certain rights and powers in respect of CEMIG (“Special Rights”). In March 2000, a lower state court in Minas Gerais held the shareholders’ agreement invalid where it purported to grant SEB the Special Rights and enjoined the exercise of the Special Rights. In August 2001, the state appellate court denied an appeal of the merits decision and extended the injunction. In October 2001, SEB filed two appeals against the decision on the merits of the state appellate court, one tocourt’s decision with the Federal Superior Court and the other to the Supreme Court of Justice. The state appellate court denied access of these two appeals to the higher courts, and in August 2002 SEB filed two interlocutory appeals against such decision, one directed todenial with the Federal Superior Court and the other to the Supreme Court of Justice. In December 2004, the Federal Superior Court declined to hear SEB’s appeal. However, the Supreme Court of Justice is considering whether to hear SEB’s appeal. SEB intends to vigorously pursue a restoration of the value of its investment in CEMIG by all legal means; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts. Failure to prevail in this matter may limit SEB’s influence on the daily operation of CEMIG.

In August 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) announced an investigation into the organized California wholesale power markets in order to determine whether rates were just and reasonable. Further investigations involved alleged market manipulation. FERC requested documents from each of the AES Southland, LLC plants and AES Placerita, Inc. AES Southland and AES Placerita have cooperated fully with the FERC investigation. AES Southland was not subject to refund liability because it did not sell into the organized spot markets due to the nature of its tolling agreement. AES Placerita is currently subject to refund liability of $588,000 plus interest for spot sales to the California Power Exchange from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001 (“Refund Period”). In September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order addressing FERC’s decision not to impose refunds for the alleged failure to file rates, including transaction-specific data, for sales during 2000 and 2001 (“September 2004 Decision”). Although it did not order refunds, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to FERC for a refund proceeding to consider remedial options. The Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed the remand to FERC until June 13, 2007, so that settlement discussions may take place. AES Placerita and other parties are also seeking review of the September 2004 Decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, in August 2006 in a separate case, the Ninth Circuit confirmed the Refund Period, expanded the transactions subject to refunds to include multi-day transactions, expanded the potential liability of sellers to include any pre-Refund Period tariff violations, and remanded the matter to FERC (“August 2006 Decision”). The Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed its August 2006 Decision until June 13, 2007, to facilitate settlement discussions. The August 2006 Decision may allow FERC to reopen closed investigations and order relief. Placerita made sales during the periods at issue in the September 2004 and August 2006 Decisions. Both appeals may be subject to further court review, and further FERC proceedings on remand would be required to determine potential liability, if any. Prior to the August 2006 Decision, AES Placerita’s potential liability could have approximated $23 million plus interest. However, given the September 2004 and August 2006 Decisions, it is unclear whether AES Placerita’s potential liability is less than or exceeds that amount. AES Placerita believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In November 2000, the Company was named in a purported class action suit along with six other defendants, alleging unlawful manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market, allegedly resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices throughout California. The alleged causes of action include violation of the Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On July 30, 2001, the Court remanded the case to San Diego Superior Court. The case was consolidated with five other lawsuits alleging similar claims against other defendants. In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a new master complaint in the consolidated action, which reasserted the claims raised in the earlier action and names the Company,


AES Redondo Beach, LLC, AES Alamitos, LLC, and AES Huntington Beach, LLC as defendants. In May 2002, the case was removed by certain cross-defendants from the San Diego County Superior Court to the United StatesU.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which was granted on December 13, 2002. Certain defendants appealed aspects of that decision to the United StatesU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. OnIn December 8, 2004, a panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the District Court, and remanding the case to state court. OnIn July 8, 2005, defendants filed a demurrer in state court seeking dismissal of the case in its entirety. OnIn October 3, 2005, the court sustained the demurrer and entered an order of dismissal. OnIn December 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to any actions asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously against the allegations.

In August 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) announced an investigation into the organized California wholesale power markets in order to determine whether rates were just and reasonable. Further investigations involved alleged market manipulation. The FERC requested documents from each of the AES Southland plants and AES Placerita. AES Southland and AES Placerita have


cooperated fullyappeal with the FERC investigation. AES Southland is not subject to refund liability because itCalifornia Court of Appeal. In February 2007, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Court’s judgment of dismissal. Plaintiffs did not sell intoappeal the organized spot markets due to the nature of its tolling agreement. AES Placerita is currently subject to refund liability of $586,000 for sales to the California Power Exchange. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the appeal of the FERC’s decision not to impose refunds for the alleged failure to file rates including transaction specific data for sales during 2000 and 2001. Although in its order issued on September 9, 2004 the Ninth Circuit did not order refunds, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the FERC for a refund proceeding to consider remedial options. That remand order is stayed pending rehearing at the Ninth Circuit. In addition, in a separate case, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the time and scope of the refunds. Placerita made sales during the time period at issue in the appeals. Depending on the result of the appeals, the method of calculating refunds and the time period to which the method is applied, the alleged refunds sought from AES Placerita could approximate $23 million.

In November 2002, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena issued on application of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California. The subpoena sought, inter alia, certain categories of documents related to the generation and sale of electricity in California from January 1998 to the date of the subpoena. The Company cooperated in providing documents in response to the subpoena.Appeal’s decision.

In August 2001, the Grid Corporation of Orissa, India (“Gridco”), filed a petition against the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (“CESCO”), an affiliate of the Company, with the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (“OERC”), alleging that CESCO had defaulted on its obligations as an OERC-licensed distribution company, that CESCO management abandoned the management of CESCO, and asking for interim measures of protection, including the appointment of an administrator to manage CESCO. Gridco, a state-owned entity, is the sole wholesale energy provider to CESCO. Pursuant to the OERC’s August 2001 order, the management of CESCO was replaced with a government administrator who was appointed by the OERC. The OERC later held that the Company and other CESCO shareholders were not necessary or proper parties to the OERC proceeding. In August 2004, the OERC issued a notice to CESCO, the Company and others giving the recipients of the notice until November 2004 to show cause why CESCO’s distribution license should not be revoked. In response, CESCO submitted a business plan to the OERC. In February 2005, the OERC issued an order rejecting the proposed business plan. The order also stated that the CESCO distribution license would be revoked if an acceptable business plan for CESCO was not submitted to, and approved by, the OERC prior to March 31, 2005. In its April 2, 2005 order, the OERC revoked the CESCO distribution license. CESCO has filed an appeal against the April 2, 2005 OERC order and that appeal remains pending in the Indian courts. In addition, Gridco asserted that a comfort letter issued by the Company in connection with the Company’s indirect investment in CESCO obligates the Company to provide additional financial support to cover all of CESCO’s financial obligations to Gridco. In December 2001, Gridco served a notice to arbitrate pursuant to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 on the Company, AES Orissa Distribution Private Limited (“AES ODPL”), and Jyoti Structures (“Jyoti”) pursuant to the terms of the CESCO Shareholders Agreement between Gridco, the Company, AES ODPL, Jyoti and CESCO (the “CESCO arbitration”). In the arbitration, Gridco appears to seek approximately $188.5 million in damages plus undisclosed penalties and interest, but a detailed alleged damages analysis has yet to be filed by Gridco. The Company has counter-claimedcounterclaimed against Gridco for damages. An arbitration hearing with respect to liability was conducted on August 3-9,3 9, 2005 in India. Final written arguments regarding liability were submitted by the parties to the arbitral tribunal in late October 2005. A decision on liability may be issued in the near future. Ahas not yet been issued. Moreover, a petition remains pending before the Indian Supreme Court concerning fees of the third neutral arbitrator and the venue of future hearings with respect to the CESCO arbitration. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to any actionsthe claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously againstin these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In December 2001, a petition was filed by Gridco in the allegations.local India courts seeking an injunction to prohibit the Company and its subsidiaries from selling their shares in Orissa Power Generation Company Pvt. Ltd. (“OPGC”), an affiliate of the Company, pending the outcome of the above-mentioned CESCO arbitration. OPGC, located in Orissa, is a 420 MW coal-based electricity generation business from which Gridco is the sole off-taker of electricity. Gridco obtained a temporary injunction, but the District Court eventually dismissed Gridco’s petition for an injunction in March 2002. Gridco appealed to the Orissa High Court, which in January 2005 allowed the appeal and granted the injunction. The Company has


appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of India. In May 2005, the Supreme Court adjourned this matter until August 2005. In August 2005, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter again to await the award of the arbitral tribunal in the CESCO arbitration. The Company believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In early 2002, Gridco made an application to the OERC requesting that the OERC initiate proceedings regarding the terms of OPGC’s existing power purchase agreement (“PPA”) with Gridco. In response, OPGC filed a petition in the India courts to block any such OERC proceedings. In early 2005 the Orissa High Court upheld the OERC’s jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings as requested by Gridco. OPGC appealed that High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court and sought stays of both the High Court’s decision and the underlying OERC proceedings regarding the PPA’s terms. In April 2005, the Supreme Court granted OPGC’s requests and ordered stays of the High Court’s decision and the OERC proceedings with respect to the PPA’s terms. The matter is awaiting further hearing. Unless the Supreme Court finds in favor of OPGC’s appeal or otherwise prevents the OERC’s proceedings regarding the PPA terms, the OERC will likely lower the tariff payable to OPGC under the PPA, which would have an adverse impact on OPGC’s financials. OPGC believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses and will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In April 2002, IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (“IPALCO”), the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Company thrift plan (“Pension Committee”), and certain former officers and directors of IPALCO were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United StatesU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. OnIn May 28, 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. The amended complaint asserts that IPALCO and former members of the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Company thrift planPension Committee breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act by investing assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by the Company. In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a class action. TheSeptember 2003 the Court granted theplaintiffs’ motion for class certification on September 30, 2003. Oncertification. In October 31, 2003 the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability. OnIn August 11, 2005, the Court issued an Orderorder denying the summary judgment motions, but striking one defense asserted by defendants. A trial addressing only the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty began on February 21, 2006 and concluded on February 28, 2006. Post trial briefs are due by April 6, 2006, and responses are due by April 20, 2006. A decision will follow sometime thereafter. If the Court rules against the IPALCO defendants, one or more trials on reliance, damages, and other issues will be conducted separately. IPALCO believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

In November 2002, Stone & Webster, Inc. (“S&W”) filed a lawsuit against AES Wolf Hollow, L.P. (“AESWH”) and AES Frontier, L.P. (“AESF,” and, collectively with AESWH, “sub-subsidiaries”) in the District Court of Hood County, Texas. At the time of filing, AESWH and AESF were two indirect subsidiaries of the Company, but in December 2004, the Company finalized agreements to transfer the ownership of AESWH and AESF. S&W contracted with AESWH and AESF in March 2002 to perform the engineering, procurement and construction of the Wolf Hollow project, a gas-fired combined cycle power plant in Hood County, Texas. In its initial complaint, filed in November 2002, S&W requested a declaratory judgment that a fire that took place at the project on June 16, 2002 constituted a force majeure event, and that S&W was not required to pay rebates assessed for associated delays. As part of the initial complaint, S&W also sought to enjoin AESWH and AESF from drawing down on letters of credit provided by S&W. The Court refused to issue the injunction, and the sub-subsidiaries drew down on the letters of credit and withheld milestone payments from S&W. S&W has since amended its complaint five times and joined additional parties, including the Company and Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group, Inc. In addition to the claims already mentioned, the current claims by S&W include claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, wrongful liquidated damages, foreclosure of lien, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. S&W appears to assert damages against the sub-subsidiaries and the Company in the amount of $114 million in recently filed expert reports and seeks exemplary damages. S&W filed a lien against the ownership interests of AESWH and AESF in the property, with each lien allegedly valued, after amendment on March 14, 2005, at approximately $87 million. In January 2004, the Company filed a counterclaim against S&W and its parent, the Shaw Group, Inc. (“Shaw”). AESWH and AESF filed answers and counterclaims against S&W, which since have been amended. The amount of AESWH and AESF’s counterclaims are approximately $215 million, according to calculations of the sub-subsidiaries and of an expert retained in connection with the litigation, minus the Contract balance, not earned as of December 31, 2005, to the knowledge of the Company, in the amount of $45.8 million. In March 2004, S&W and Shaw each filed an answer to the counterclaims. The counterclaims and answers subsequently were amended. In March 2005, the Court rescheduled the trial date for October 24, 2005. In September 2005, the trial date was re-scheduled for June 2006. In November 2005, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims asserted against it by S&W. On February 21, 20062007, the Court issued a letter ruling grantingdecision in favor of defendants and dismissed the Company’s motion for summary judgment and directing the Company to submit a proposed order. On February 22, 2006 the Company submitted a proposed order, which has been objected to by S&W and Shaw. On March 15, 2006, S&W moved to reconsiderlawsuit with prejudice. In April 2007, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision granting the Company’s summary judgment motion. A decision on the proposed order and the motion for reconsideration are pending; the Court has yet to enter a final order on the Company’s


summary judgment motion. The Company believes that the allegations in S&W’s complaint are meritless, and that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted by S&W. The Company intendsU.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as to defend the lawsuitformer officers and pursue its claims vigorously.directors of IPALCO, but not as to IPALCO or the Pension Committee.

In March 2003, the office of the Federal Public Prosecutor for the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil (“MPF”) notified AES Eletropaulo that it had commenced an inquiry related to the BNDESBrazilian National Development Bank (“BNDES”) financings provided to AES Elpa and AES TransgasTransgás and the rationing loan provided to AES Eletropaulo, changes in the control of AES Eletropaulo, sales of assets by AES Eletropaulo and the quality of service provided by AES Eletropaulo to its customers, and requested various documents from AES Eletropaulo relating to these matters. In October 2003 this inquiry was sent toJuly 2004, the MPF for continuing investigation. Alsofiled a public civil lawsuit in March 2003,federal court alleging that BNDES violated Law 8429/92 (the Administrative Misconduct Act) and BNDES’s internal rules by: (1) approving the Commission for Public Works and Services of the Sao Paulo Congress requested AES Eletropaulo to appear at a hearing concerning the alleged default by AES Elpa and AES TransgasTransgás loans; (2) extending the payment terms on the BNDES financingsAES Elpa and AES Transgás loans; (3) authorizing the qualitysale of service rendered byEletropaulo’s preferred shares at a stock-market auction; (4) accepting Eletropaulo’s preferred shares to secure the loan provided to Eletropaulo; and (5) allowing the restructurings of Light Serviços de Eletricidade S.A. (“Light”) and Eletropaulo. The MPF also named AES Eletropaulo. This hearing was postponed indefinitely.Elpa and AES Transgás as defendants in the lawsuit because they allegedly benefited from BNDES’s alleged violations. In addition,June 2005, AES Elpa and AES Transgás presented their preliminary answers to the charges. In May 2006, the federal court ruled that the MPF could pursue its claims based on the first, second, and fourth alleged violations noted above. The MPF subsequently filed


an interlocutory appeal seeking to require the federal court to consider all five alleged violations. Also, in April 2003,July 2006, AES Elpa and AES Transgás filed an interlocutory appeal seeking to enjoin the officefederal court from considering any of the MPF notifiedalleged violations. The MPF’s lawsuit before the federal court has been stayed pending those interlocutory appeals. AES Eletropaulo that it is conducting an inquiry into possible errors relatedElpa and AES Transgás believe they have meritorious defenses to the collection by AES Eletropaulo of customers’ unpaid past-due debtsallegations asserted against them and requesting the company to justify its procedures. In December 2003, ANEEL answered, as requested by the MPF,will defend themselves vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that the issue regarding the past-due debts are tothey will be includedsuccessful in the analysis to the revision of the “General Conditions for the Electric Energy Supply.”their efforts.

In May 2003, there were press reports of allegations that Light colluded with Enron in April 1998 Light Serviços de Eletricidade S.A. (“Light”) colluded with Enron in connection with the auction of AES Eletropaulo. Enron and Light were among three potential bidders for AES Eletropaulo. At the time of the transaction in 1998, AES owned less than 15% of theLight’s stock of Light and shared representation in Light’s management and Board with three other shareholders. In June 2003, the Secretariat of Economic Law forof the Brazilian DepartmentMinistry of Economic Protection and DefenseJustice of Brazil (“SDE”) issued a notice of preliminary investigation seeking information from a number of entities, including AES Brasil Energia, with respect to certainthe allegations arising out ofin the privatization ofpress reports. As AES Eletropaulo. OnBrasil Energia was incorrectly cited in the original complaint, in August 1, 2003, AES Elpa responded on behalf of AES-affiliated companies and denied knowledge of these allegations. The SDE began a follow-up administrative proceeding as reported in a notice published onin October 31, 2003. In response to the Secretary of Economic Law’sSDE’s official letters requesting explanations on such accusation,the accusations, AES EletropauloElpa filed its defense onin January 19, 2004. OnIn April 7, 2005, AES EletropauloElpa responded to aan SDE request for additional information. On July 11,In June 2005, the SDE ruled thatdismissed the case was dismissed due to the passing ofbecause the statute of limitations had expired and its investigation had found no evidence supporting the allegations. Subsequently, the case was subsequently sent to the SuperiorAdministrative Council offor Economic Defense (“CADE”), the SDEBrazilian antitrust authority, for final review of the decision. Furthermore, the São Paulo’s State Public Attorney's Office and the Federal Public Attorney’s Office issued separate opinions concluding that the case should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. The São Paulo’s State Public Attorney’s Office further found that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. These opinions were ratified by the relevant state and federal courts. In January 2007, CADE decided by unanimous vote of its Counselors to close the case.

AES Florestal, Ltd., (“Florestal”), had been operating a wooden utility pole manufacturer located in Triunfo,factory and had other assets, including a wooded area known as “Horto Renner”, in the stateState of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil has(collectively, “Property”). AES Florestal had been operated byunder the control of AES Sul since October 1997, as part of the originalwhen AES Sul was created pursuant to a privatization transaction by the Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. After it came under the control of AES Sul, Brazil, that created Sul. From 1997 toAES Florestal performed an environmental audit of the present,entire operational cycle at the chemical compound chromated copper arsenate was used by Florestal to chemically treat the poles under an operating license issued by the Brazilian government. Prior to 1997, another chemical, creosote, was used to treat the poles. After becoming the operator of Florestal, Sulpole factory. The audit discovered approximately 200 barrels of solid creosote waste onand other contaminants at the pole factory. The audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia Elétrica (CEEE), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. AES Sul and AES Florestal property. In 2002,subsequently took the initiative of communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. The Public Attorney’s Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry No. 02/02) was initiatedn. 24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has requested that the police station of Triunfo institute a Police Investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential criminal lawsuit wasliability regarding the contamination at the pole factory. The environmental agency (“FEPAM”) has also started a procedure (Procedure n. 088200567/05 9) to analyze the measures that shall be taken to contain and remediate the contamination. The measures that must be taken by AES Sul and CEEE are still under discussion. Also, in March 2000, AES Sul filed suit against CEEE in the city2nd Court of Triunfo’s Judiciary both byPublic Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in AES Sul’s name the Property that it acquired through the privatization but that remained registered in CEEE’s name. During those proceedings, a court-appointed expert acknowledged that AES Sul had paid for the Property but opined that the Property could not be re-registered in AES Sul’s name because CEEE did not have authority to transfer the Property through the privatization. Therefore, AES waived its claim to re-register the Property and asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property. That claim is pending. Moreover, in February 2001, CEEE and the State of Rio Grande do Sul brought suit in the 7th Court of Public Prosecutors’ officeTreasure of Porto Alegre against AES Sul, AES Florestal, and certain public agents that participated in the


privatization. The plaintiffs alleged that the city of Triunfo. The civil lawsuit was settled in 2003,public agents unlawfully transferred assets and on June 27,created debts during the privatization. In 2005, the criminal lawsuitcontrol of AES Florestal was dismissed.transferred from AES Sul to AES Guaíba II in accordance with Federal Law n. 10848/04. AES Florestal hired an independent environmental assessment company to perform an environmental audit ofsubsequently became a non-operative company. In November 2005, the operational cycle at Florestal. Florestal submitted an action planCourt ruled that was accepted by the environmental authority under which it voluntarily offered to do containment work at the site. Companhia Estadual de Energia Elétrica (“CEEE”), which controlled Florestal prior to the privatization, has disputed the transfer of Florestal in the privatization, and has sought its return. A court decision recently determined that CEEE has rights of ownership in


Florestal, and the company willProperty must be returned to CEEE. Subsequently, AES Sul will demandand CEEE jointly possessed the returnProperty for a time, but CEEE has had sole possession of that portionHorto Renner since September 2006 and of the purchase price paid inrest of the privatization for Florestal.Property since April 2006.

OnIn January 27, 2004, the Company received notice of a “Formulation of Charges” filed against the Company by the Superintendence of Electricity of the Dominican Republic. In the “Formulation of Charges,” the Superintendence asserts that the existence of three generation companies (Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A., (“Itabo”) Dominican Power Partners, and AES Andres BV) and one distribution company (Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, S.A.) in the Dominican Republic, violates certain cross ownershipcross-ownership restrictions contained in the General Electricity law of the Dominican Republic. OnIn February 10, 2004, the Company filed in the First Instance Court of the National District of the Dominican Republic (“Court”) an action seeking injunctive relief based on several constitutional due process violations contained in the “Formulation of Charges” (“Constitutional Injunction”). On or aboutIn February 24, 2004, the Court granted the Constitutional Injunction and ordered the immediate ceasecessation of any effects of the “Formulation of Charges,” and the enactment by the Superintendence of Electricity of a special procedure to prosecute alleged antitrust complaints under the General Electricity Law. OnIn March 1, 2004, the Superintendence of Electricity appealed the Court’s decision. In July 2004, the Company divested any interest in Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, S.A. The Superintendence of Electricity’s appeal is pending. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and intendswill defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In April 2004, BNDES filed a collection suit against SEB to obtain the payment of R$3.3 billion (US$1.6 billion) under the loan agreement between BNDES and SEB, the proceeds of which were used by SEB to acquire shares of CEMIG. In May 2004, the 15th Federal Circuit Court ordered the attachment of SEB's CEMIG shares, which were given as collateral for the loan, as well as dividends paid by CEMIG to SEB. At the time of the attachment, the shares were worth approximately R$762 million (US$247 million). In March 2007, the dividends were determined to be worth approximately R$423 million (US$198 million). SEB’s defense was ruled groundless by the Circuit Court in December 2006. In January 2007, SEB filed an appeal to the relevant Federal Court of Appeals. BNDES may attempt to seize the attached CEMIG shares and withdraw the dividends at any time. SEB believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend this lawsuit vigorously.itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In July 2004, the Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (“CDEEE”), which is the government entity that currently owns 50% of Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A. (“Itabo”), filed two lawsuits against Itabo, an AES affiliate and another lawsuit against Ede Este, a former indirect subsidiary of AES. The lawsuits against Itabo also name the former president of Itabo as a defendant. In one of the lawsuits against Itabo, CDEEE requested an accounting of all transactions between Itabo and related parties. On November 29, 2004,Company, in the First Roomand Fifth Chambers of the Civil and Commercial Court of First Instance of the National District dismissed the case. CDEEE appealed the dismissal to the Second Room of the Court of Appeal offor the National District. A hearingCDEEE alleges in both lawsuits that Itabo spent more than was held on May 12, 2005,necessary to rehabilitate two generation units of an Itabo power plant, and, in the Fifth Chamber lawsuit, that those funds were paid to affiliates and subsidiaries of AES Gener and Coastal Itabo, requested thatLtd. (“Coastal”) without the Courtrequired approval of AppealItabo’s board of administration. AES Gener and Coastal were shareholders of Itabo during the rehabilitation, but Coastal later sold its interest in Itabo to an indirect subsidiary of the National District declare that it lacked jurisdictionCompany. In the First Chamber lawsuit, CDEEE seeks an accounting of Itabo’s transactions relating to decide the matter,rehabilitation. In November 2004, the First Chamber dismissed the case for lack of legal basis. On appeal, in light of the arbitration clause set forth in the contracts executed between Itabo and CDEEE during the Capitalization Process. The Court of Appeal of the National District denied Itabo’s request and ordered that the claims be heard on the merits, but reserved judgment on Itabo’s arguments that the matter should be resolved in an arbitration proceeding. On May 25, 2005, Itabo appealed before the Court of Appeals of Santo Domingo and requested a stay of the May 12, 2005 decision. On October 14, 2005 the Court of Appeals of Santo Domingo upheldruled in Itabo’s request of jurisdictional incompetence, accepting Itabo’s argumentfavor, reasoning that the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) had exclusiveit lacked jurisdiction over the matter.dispute because the parties’ contracts mandated arbitration. The Supreme Court of Justice is considering CDEEE’s appeal of the Court of Appeals’ decision. In the other ItaboFifth Chamber lawsuit, which also names Itabo’s former president as a defendant, CDEEE requested seeks $15 million in damages and the seizure of Itabo’s assets. In October 2005, the Fifth Chamber held


that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Second Roomdispute given the arbitration provisions in the parties’ contracts. The First Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the National District order Itabo to deliver its accounting books and records for the period fromratified that decision in September 1999 to July 2004 to CDEEE. At a hearing on March 30, 2005, Itabo argued that the Court of Appeal of the National District did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the case should be decided in an arbitration proceeding. On October 6, 2005 the Court of Appeal of the National District upheld Itabo’s petition of jurisdictional incompetence and declared that the lawsuit should be decided in an arbitral proceeding. CDEEE filed an appeal of the decision with the First Room of the Court of Appeal of the National District, which is pending. In the Ede Este lawsuit, CDEEE requests an accounting of all of Ede Este’s commercial and financial operations with affiliate companies since August 5, 1999. This lawsuit was dismissed by the First Instance Tribunal of the National District for lack of jurisdiction. CDEEE then filed an identical lawsuit in the First Instance Tribunal of the Santo Domingo Province, which is pending.2006. In a related proceeding, onin May 26, 2005, Itabo filed a lawsuit in the United StatesU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to compel CDEEE to arbitrate its claims against Itabo.claims. The petition was denied onin July 18, 2005, and Itabo appealed2005. Itabo’s appeal of that decision onto the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit has been stayed since September 6, 2005. The appeal  is pending. In another related proceeding, on2006. Also, in February 9, 2005, Itabo initiated arbitration against CDEEE and the Fondo Patrimonial para el Desarrollode las Empresas Reformadas (“FONPER”) in the Arbitral CourtInternational Chamber of the ICCCommerce (“ICC”) seeking, among other relief, to enforce


the arbitration/dispute resolutionarbitration provisions in the contracts among the parties. FONPER submitted an answer and a counterclaim while CDEEE submitted only an answer. Onparties’ contracts. In March 28, 2006, Itabo and FONPER executed an agreement resolving all ofsettled their respective claims inclaims. In September 2006, the arbitration.   The settlement agreement will be submittedICC determined that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the ICC. The arbitration continues as betweento Itabo and CDEEE. Itabo believes it has meritorious claims and defenses to the allegations asserted against it and will defend itselfassert them vigorously against those allegations.

On February 18, 2004, AES Gener S.A. (“Gener SA”), a subsidiary of the Company, filed a lawsuit against Coastal Itabo, Ltd. (“Coastal”), Gener SA’s co-venturer in Itabo, a Dominican Republic power generation company, in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit sought to enjoin the efforts initiated by Coastal to hire an alleged “independent expert,” purportedly pursuant to the Shareholders Agreement between the parties, to perform a valuation of Gener SA’s aggregate interests in Itabo. Coastal asserted that Gener SA had committed a material breach under the parties’ Shareholders Agreement, and therefore, Gener SA was required if requested by Coastal to sell its aggregate interests in Itabo to Coastal at a price equal to 75% of the independent expert’s valuation. Coastal claimed a breach occurred based on alleged violations by Gener SA of purported antitrust laws of the Dominican Republic and breaches of fiduciary duty. Gener SA disputed that any default had occurred. On March 11, 2004, upon motion by Gener SA, the court enjoined disclosure of the valuation performed by the “expert” and ordered the parties to arbitration. On March 11, 2004, Gener SA commenced arbitration proceedings seeking, among other things, a declarationthese proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it had not breached the Shareholders Agreement. Coastal then filed a counterclaim alleging that Gener SA had breached the Shareholders Agreement. On January 4, 2006, Coastal filed a “Withdrawal of Counterclaim” with a “Withdrawal of Notice of Defaults” withdrawing with prejudicewill be successful in its allegations that Gener SA had violated the Shareholders Agreement. On January 25, 2006, the arbitration tribunal heard arguments on the form of the final award and whether to award fees and costs to Gener SA. The arbitration tribunal’s decision on those matters is pending.efforts.

Pursuant to the pesification established by the Public Emergency Law and related decrees in Argentina, since the beginning of 2002, the Company’s subsidiary TermoAndes has converted its obligations under its gas supply and gas transportation contracts into pesos. In accordance with the Argentine regulations, payments were made in Argentine pesos at a 1:1 exchange rate. Certain gas suppliers (Tecpetrol, Mobil and Compañía General de Combustibles S.A.), which represented 50% of the gas supply contract, have objected to the payment in pesos. On January 30, 2004, such gas suppliers filed for arbitration with the ICC requesting the re-dollarization of the gas price. TermoAndes replied on March 10, 2004 with a counter-lawsuit related to:  (i) the default of suppliers regarding the most favored nation clause; (ii) the unilateral modification of the point of gas injection by the suppliers; (iii) the obligations to supply the contracted quantities; and (iv) the ability of TermoAndes to resell the gas not consumed. On January 26, 2006, the parties reached agreement resolving all reciprocal claims, including those submitted for arbitration. The settlement agreement was submitted to the arbitration court for it to issue a decision based on the agreed settlement. The arbitration court has yet to issue a decision.

On or about October 27, 2004, Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) filed a lawsuit against AES Red Oak LLC (“Red Oak”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaint purports to allege claims for breach of contract, fraud, interference with contractual rights and equitable relief concerning alleged issues relatedrelating to the construction and/or performance of the Red Oak project.project, an 800 MW combined cycle power plant in Sayreville, New Jersey. The complaint seeks the return from Red Oak of approximately $30 million that was drawn by Red Oak under a letter of credit that was posted by Raytheon related tofor the construction and/or performance of the Red Oak project. Raytheon also seeks $110 million in purported additional expenses allegedly incurred by Raytheon in connection with the guaranty and construction agreements entered with Red Oak. In December 2004, Red Oak answered the complaint and filed breach of contract and fraud counterclaims against Raytheon. In January 2005, Raytheon moved for dismissal of Red Oak’s counterclaims. In March 2005, the motion to


dismiss was withdrawn and a partial motion for summary judgment was filed by Raytheon seeking return of approximately $16 million of the letter of credit draw.The Court subsequently ordered Red Oak submitted its opposition to pay Raytheon approximately $16.3 million plus interest, which sum allegedly represented the partial motion for summary judgment in April 2005. Meanwhile, Raytheon re-filed its motion to dismiss the fraud allegations in the counterclaim. In late April 2005, Red Oak filed its response opposing the renewed motion to dismiss. In December 2005, the Court granted a dismissal of Red Oak’s fraud claim. The Court also ordered the return of approximately $16 millionamount of the letter of credit draw that had yet to be utilized for the performance/construction issues. At the Court’s suggestion, the parties are negotiating whether to deposit the $16 million into a new letter of credit by Raytheon.The Court also dismissed Red Oak’s fraud claims, which decision was upheld on appeal. The parties are conducting discovery. The discovery cut-off is December 15, 2006.have stipulated that Red Oak may assert claims for performance/construction issues if it has incurred costs on such claims. In May 2005, Raytheon also filed a related action against Red Oak in the Superior Court of Middlesex County, New Jersey, on May 27, 2005, seeking to foreclose on a construction lien filed againstin the amount of approximately $31 million on property allegedly owned by Red Oak, in the amount of $31 million.Oak. Red Oak was served with the Complaint in September of 2005, and filed its answer affirmative defenses, and counterclaim in October of 2005. Raytheon has stated that it wishes to stay the New Jersey action pending the outcome of the New York action. Red Oak has not decided whether it wishes to oppose the lien or consent to a stay. Red Oak believes it has meritorious claims and defenses to the claims asserted against it and expects to defend itselfwill assert them vigorously in the lawsuits.these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

OnIn January 26, 2005, the City of Redondo Beach (“City”), of California sentissued an assessment against Williams Power Co., Inc., (“Williams”) and AES Redondo Beach, LLC (“AES Redondo”), an indirect subsidiary of the Company, a notice of assessment for approximately $71.7 million in allegedly overdue utility users’ tax (“UUT”) for the period of May 1998 through September 2004, taxing, interest, and penalties relating to the natural gas used at AES Redondo’s power plant from May 1998 through September 2004 to generate electricity during that period. The original assessment included alleged amounts owing of $32.8 million for gas usage and $38.9 million in interest and penalties. Theelectricity. In September 2005, the City lowered the total assessment to $56.7 million on July 13, 2005, based on an admitted calculation error. An administrative hearing before the Tax Administrator was held on July 18-21, 2005, to hear Williams’ and AES Redondo’s respective objections to the assessment. On September 23, 2005, the Tax Administrator issued a decision holding AES Redondo and Williams jointly and severally liable for approximately $56.7 million over $20 million of which isin UUT, interest, and penalties (“September 23 Decision”). Onpenalties. In October 7, 2005, AES Redondo and Williams filed an appeal of that decisionrespective appeals with the City Manager, who appointed a Hearing Officer to decide the appeal. In December 2006, the Hearing Officer overturned the City’s assessment against AES Redondo (but not Williams). In December 2006, Williams filed a petition for writ of Redondo Beach. Under its Ordinance,mandate with Los Angeles Superior Court concerning the Hearing Officer’s decision. Williams later prepaid $56.7 million to the City in order to continue litigating its petition, pursuant to a court order, and filed an amended petition. In March 2007, the City filed a petition for writ of Redondo Beach was requiredmandate with the Superior Court concerning the Hearing Officer’s decision as to hold the appeal hearing within 45 days of the filing of the appeal. The City’s hearing officer, however, has issued a tentative schedule stating that any hearing will be completed by April 21, 2006, and that the “appeal determination” will be issued by May 19, 2006.AES Redondo. In addition, in July 2005, AES Redondo filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking a refund of UUT that was paid fromsince February 2005, through final judgment of that case, and an order that the City cannot charge AES Redondo UUT going forward. AtWilliams later filed a February 6, 2006 status conference,similar complaint that was related to AES Redondo’s lawsuit. After authorizing limited discovery on disputed jurisdictional and other issues, including whether AES Redondo and Williams must prepay to the Los Angeles SuperiorCity any allegedly owed UUT prior to judicially challenging the merits of the UUT, the Court stayed AES Redondo’s July 2005 lawsuit until May 22, 2006, after ordering the City and AES Redondo to agree on dates by which the administrative appeal of the September 23 Decision should be finalized. On May 22, 2006, the Court will hold a status conference to determine whether the Court should proceed with AES Redondo’s July 2005 lawsuit.case in


December 2006. Furthermore, onsince December 13, 2005, the Tax Administrator senthas periodically issued UUT assessments against AES Redondo and Williams two itemized bills for allegedly overdue UUT on the gas used at the facility. The first bill was for $1,274,753.49 inpower plant since October 2004 ( “New UUT interest, and penalties on the gas used at the facility from October 1, 2004, through February 1, 2005. The second bill was for $1,757,242.12 in UUT, interest, and penalties on the gas used at the facility from February 2, 2005, through September 30, 2005. Subsequently, on January 21, 2006, the Tax Administrator sentAssessments”). AES Redondo and Williams another itemized bill that assessed $269,592.37 in allegedly overdue UUT, interest, and penalties on gas used at the facility from October 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. On December 30, 2005, AES Redondo filed objections with the Tax Administratorhas objected to the City’s December 13, 2005, January 21, 2006,those and any future UUT assessments. A hearing has not been scheduled on those objections, but the City’sThe Tax Administrator has deniedstated that AES Redondo’s objections to the December 13, 2005 UUT assessments based on the findingsare moot in light of his September 23 Decision, which, as noted above, is on appeal. If there is2005 decision. The Tax Administrator has not scheduled a hearing on the December 13, 2005, and January 21, 2006,New UUT


assessments, the City’s Tax Administratorbut has indicated that if there is one he will only address the amount of those assessments, but not the merits of them. The CompanyAES Redondo believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses, and it will assert them vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In February 2006, the local Kazakhstan tax commission imposed an environmental fine on Maikuben West mine, for alleged unauthorized disposal of overburden in the mine during 2003 and 2004. On November 23, 2006, Maikuben West paid a fine of approximately $2.8 million in connection with this matter.

In March 2006, the Government of the Dominican Republic and Secretariat of State of the Environment and Natural Resources of the Dominican Republic (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against The AES Corporation, AES Aggregate Services, Ltd., AES Atlantis, Inc., and AES Puerto Rico, LP (collectively, “AES Defendants”), and unrelated parties, Silver Spot Enterprises and Roger Charles Fina. In June 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a substantially similar amended complaint against the defendants, alleging that the defendants improperly disposed of “coal ash waste” in the Dominican Republic, and that the alleged waste was generated at AES Puerto Rico’s power plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico. Based on these allegations, the amended complaint asserts seven claims against the defendants: violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 68, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”); conspiracy to violate section 1962(c) of the RICO Act; civil conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and other unspecified laws concerning bribery and waste disposal; aiding and abetting the violation of the FCPA and other unspecified laws concerning bribery and waste disposal; violation of unspecified nuisance law; violation of unspecified product liability law; and violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1350, the Alien Tort Statute (which the Plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice). While the Plaintiffs did not quantify their alleged damages in their amended complaint, in their discovery responses they claimed to be seeking at least $28 million in alleged compensatory damages and $196 million in alleged punitive damages from the defendants. In February 2007 the Plaintiffs and the AES Defendants settled their dispute. The Court has entered a joint stipulation dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims against the AES Defendants with prejudice.

AES Eastern Energy voluntarily disclosed to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on November 27, 2002 that nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) exceedances appear to have occurred on October 30 and 31, and November 18 and 10 of 2002. The exceedances were discovered through an audit by plant personnel of the Plant’s NOx Reasonably Available Control Technology (“RACT”) tracking system. Immediately upon the discovery of the exceedances, the selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) at the Somerset plant was activated to reduce NOx emissions. AES Eastern Energy learned of a notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the NYSDEC for the NOx RACT exceedances through a review of the November 2004 release of the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History (“ECHO”) database. However, AES Eastern Energy has not yet seen the NOV from the NYSDEC. AES Eastern Energy is currently negotiating with NYSDEC concerning this matter. On November 13, 2006 AES Eastern Energy paid a fine of $263,200 and entered into a consent decree with NYSDEC, addressing these matters.

In June 2006, AES Ekibastuz was found to have breached a local tax law by failing to obtain a license for use of local water for the period of January 1, 2005 through October 3, 2005, in a timely manner. As a result, an additional permit fee was imposed, brining the total permit fee to approximately $135,000. The company has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.


In October 2006, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court decided that it would review a lawsuit filed in 2000 by certain Venezuelan citizens alleging that the Company’s acquisition of a controlling stake in C.A. La Electricidad de Caracas (“EDC”) in 2000 was void because the acquisition had not been approved by the Venezuelan National Assembly. AES has been notified of the Supreme Court’s decision to review the lawsuit. AES believes that it complied with all existing laws with respect to the acquisition and that there are meritorious defenses to the allegations assertedin this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurance that it will prevail in this lawsuit.

In October 2006, CDEEE began making public statements that it intends to seek to compel the renegotiation and/or rescission of long-term power purchase agreements with certain power-generation companies in the Dominican Republic. Although the details concerning CDEEE’s statements are unclear and no formal government action has been taken, AES owns certain interests in three power-generation companies in the country (AES Andres, Itabo, and Dominican Power Partners) that could be adversely impacted by any actions taken by or at the direction of CDEEE.

In February 2007, the Competition Committee of the Ministry of Industry and Trading of the Republic of Kazakhstan initiated administrative proceedings against two hydro plants under AES concession, Ust-Kamenogorsk HPP and Shulbinsk HPP (collectively, “Hydros”), for allegedly using Nurenergoservice LLP to increase power prices for customers in alleged violation of Kazakhstan’s antimonopoly laws. The Competition Committee subsequently issued orders directing the Hydros to pay approximately 4.3 billion KZT (US$35 million) in damages and fines. In April 2007 the Hydros appealed those orders to the local courts. In addition, Nurenergoservice has been informed that it will be ordered by the Competition Committee to pay approximately 2 billion KZT (US$15 million) for alleged antimonopoly violations. In related proceedings, in March 2007 the local financial police initiated criminal proceedings against the General Director and the Finance Director of the Hydros. Those proceedings were later terminated pursuant to a settlement. The Hydros and Nurenergoservice believe they have meritorious defenses and will defend itself vigorously against the allegations.assert them vigorously; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

12.   BENEFIT PLANS

DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN—The Company sponsors one defined contribution plan, qualified under section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code, which is available to eligible AES employees. The plan provides for Company matching contributions in Company stock, other Company contributions at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors in Company stock, and discretionary tax deferred contributions from the participants. Participants are fully vested in their own contributions and the Company’s matching contributions. Participants vest in other Company contributions ratably over a five-year period ending on the 5th anniversary of their hire date. Company contributions to the plans were approximately $21million, $17 million, $16 million and $14$16 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003,2004, respectively.

DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS—Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries have defined benefit pension plans covering substantially all of their respective employees. Pension benefits are based on years of credited service, age of the participant and average earnings. Of the twenty onetwenty-seven defined benefit plans, twothree are at U.S. subsidiaries and the remaining plans are at foreign subsidiaries.

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

CHANGE IN BENEFIT OBLIGATION:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefit obligation at beginning of year

 

$

475

 

$

2,409

 

$

470

 

$

2,039

 

Service cost

 

5

 

5

 

4

 

4

 

Interest cost

 

28

 

296

 

27

 

232

 

Employee Contributions

 

 

15

 

 

10

 

Plan amendments

 

7

 

3

 

2

 

1

 

Plan curtailments

 

 

(1

)

 

 

Benefits paid

 

(30

)

(251

)

(30

)

(194

)

Effect of plan combinations

 

 

20

 

 

9

 

Actuarial loss

 

39

 

20

 

2

 

119

 

Effect of foreign currency exchange rate change

 

 

277

 

 

189

 

Benefit obligation as of December 31

 

$

524

 

$

2,793

 

$

475

 

$

2,409

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

CHANGE IN PLAN ASSETS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year

 

$

354

 

$

1,549

 

$

341

 

$

1,162

 

Actual return on plan assets

 

27

 

263

 

32

 

297

 

Employer contributions

 

21

 

207

 

11

 

146

 

Employee contributions

 

 

15

 

 

10

 

Benefits paid

 

(30

)

(251

)

(30

)

(194

)

Effect of foreign currency exchange rate change

 

 

184

 

 

127

 

Fair value of plan assets as of December 31

 

$

372

 

$

1,967

 

$

354

 

$

1,548

 

138164




The Company adopted SFAS 158, effective December 31, 2006, which requires recognition of an asset or liability in the balance sheet reflecting the funded status of pension and other postretirement benefits plans with current-year changes in the funded status recognized in stockholders equity. The Company recorded a cumulative adjustment, as described in the table below, to adopt the recognition provisions of SFAS No. 158 as of December 31, 2006. AES will adopt the measurement date provisions of the standard for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008.

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

RECONCILIATION OF FUNDED STATUS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair value of plan assets

 

$

372

 

$

1,967

 

$

354

 

$

1,548

 

Benefits obligations

 

524

 

2,793

 

475

 

2,409

 

Funded status

 

(152

)

(826

)

(121

)

(861

)

Unrecognized transistion asset

 

 

(11

)

(1

)

(16

)

Unrecognized prior service cost

 

22

 

6

 

17

 

2

 

Unrecognized net actuarial loss

 

118

 

281

 

80

 

310

 

Net amount recognized at end of year

 

$

(12

)

$

(550

)

$

(25

)

$

(565

)

 

 

Before
Adoption of
SFAS 158
12/31/06

 

Effect of
FAS 158
Adoption

 

After
Adoption
12/31/06

 

Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension assets

 

 

$

25

 

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

33

 

 

Regulatory assets

 

 

 

 

 

146

 

 

 

146

 

 

Liabilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension obligations

 

 

911

 

 

 

(70

)

 

 

841

 

 

Stockholders' Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

 

 

319

 

 

 

(145

)

 

 

174

 

 

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMOUNTS RECOGNIZED ON THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accrued benefit liability

 

$

(152

)

 

$

(855

)

 

$

(121

)

 

$

(905

)

 

Intangible asset

 

22

 

 

 

 

17

 

 

20

 

 

Equity of minority shareholders

 

 

 

48

 

 

 

 

40

 

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

 

118

 

 

257

 

 

79

 

 

280

 

 

Net amount recognized at end of year

 

$

(12

)

 

$

(550

)

 

$

(25

)

 

$

(565

)

 

The following table summarizes the Company’s change in benefit obligation, both domestic and foreign, as of December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

Accumulated Benefit Obligation

 

$

520

 

$

2,756

 

$

471

 

$

2,386

 

Information for pension plans with an accumulated benefit obligation inexcess of plan assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projected benefit obligation

 

$

524

 

$

2,697

 

$

475

 

$

2,315

 

Accumulated benefit obligation

 

$

520

 

$

2,662

 

$

471

 

$

2,295

 

Fair value of plan assets

 

$

372

 

$

1,839

 

$

354

 

$

1,450

 

Information for pension plans with a projected benefit obligation in excess of plan assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projected benefit obligation

 

$

524

 

$

2,698

 

$

475

 

$

2,317

 

Fair value of plan assets

 

$

372

 

$

1,839

 

$

354

 

$

1,450

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

CHANGE IN BENEFIT OBLIGATION:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefit obligation at beginning of year

 

$

524

 

$

2,794

 

$

475

 

$

2,410

 

Service cost

 

6

 

7

 

5

 

5

 

Interest cost

 

30

 

356

 

28

 

297

 

Employee Contributions

 

 

17

 

 

15

 

Plan amendments

 

5

 

 

7

 

3

 

Plan curtailments

 

 

 

 

(1

)

Benefits paid

 

(30

)

(287

)

(30

)

(251

)

Net transfer in/(out)

 

 

5

 

 

 

Effect of plan combinations

 

 

 

 

20

 

Actuarial loss

 

20

 

53

 

39

 

20

 

Effect of foreign currency exchange rate change

 

 

268

 

 

276

 

Benefit obligation as of December 31

 

$

555

 

$

3,213

 

$

524

 

$

2,794

 

 


The following table summarizes the company’s change in plan assets, both domestic and foreign, as of December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

CHANGE IN PLAN ASSETS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year

 

$

372

 

$

1,958

 

$

354

 

$

1,541

 

Actual return on plan assets

 

40

 

440

 

27

 

261

 

Employer contributions

 

40

 

212

 

21

 

209

 

Employee contributions

 

 

17

 

 

16

 

Benefits paid

 

(30

)

(286

)

(30

)

(251

)

Adjustments

 

 

 

 

 

Effect of foreign currency exchange rate change

 

 

197

 

 

182

 

Fair value of plan assets as of December 31

 

$

422

 

$

2,538

 

$

372

 

$

1,958

 

The following table summarizes the company’s reconciliation of funded status, both domestic and foreign, as of December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

RECONCILIATION OF FUNDED STATUS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair value of plan assets

 

$

422

 

$

2,538

 

$

372

 

$

1,958

 

Benefits obligations

 

555

 

3,213

 

524

 

2,794

 

Funded status

 

(133

)

(675

)

(152)

 

(836

)

Unrecognized transition asset

 

 

 

 

(11

)

Unrecognized prior service cost

 

 

 

22

 

6

 

Unrecognized net actuarial loss

 

 

 

118

 

286

 

Net amount recognized at end of year

 

$

(133

)

$

(675

)

$

(12

)

$

(555

)

The following table summarizes the amounts recognized on the consolidated balance sheets, both domestic and foreign, as of December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

AMOUNTS RECOGNIZED ON THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intangible asset

 

$

 

 

$

 

 

$

22

 

 

$

1

 

 

Accrued benefit liability

 

 

 

 

 

(152

)

 

(861

)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income

 

 

 

 

 

118

 

 

257

 

 

Non-current assets

 

 

 

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accrued benefit liability—current

 

 

 

(4

)

 

 

 

 

 

Accrued benefit liability—long-term

 

(133

)

 

(704

)

 

 

 

 

 

Equity of minority shareholders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

 

Net amount recognized at end of year

 

$

(133

)

 

$

(675

)

 

$

(12

)

 

$

(555

)

 


The following table summarizes the company’s accumulated benefit obligation, both domestic and foreign, as of December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Accumulated Benefit Obligation

 

$

551

 

$

3,172

 

$

520

 

$

2,757

 

Information for pension plans with an accumulated benefit obligation in excess of plan assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projected benefit obligation

 

$

555

 

$

3,044

 

$

524

 

$

2,698

 

Accumulated benefit obligation

 

551

 

3,024

 

520

 

2,663

 

Fair value of plan assets

 

422

 

2,343

 

372

 

1,839

 

Information for pension plans with a projected benefit obligation in excess of plan assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projected benefit obligation

 

$

555

 

$

3,087

 

$

524

 

$

2,698

 

Fair value of plan assets

 

422

 

2,379

 

372

 

1,839

 

All but threesix of the Company’s subsidiaries use a December 31 measurement date. The remaining threesix subsidiaries use either a November 30, or October 31 or September 30 measurement date. Significant

The table below demonstrates the significant weighted average assumptions used in the calculation of benefit obligation and net periodic benefit cost, areboth domestic and foreign, as follows:of December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

December 31,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

Benefit Obligation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discount rates

 

5.82

%

 

12.43

%

 

5.98

%

 

11.98

%

 

6.01

%

 

11.80

%

 

 

5.64

%

 

11.73

%

 

5.82

%

 

12.43

%

 

Rates of compensation increase

 

4.75

%

 

6.96

%

 

4.75

%

 

6.97

%

 

4.75

%

 

6.80

%

 

 

4.75

%

 

6.98

%

 

4.75

%

 

6.96

%

 

Periodic Benefit Cost:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discount rate

 

5.98

%

 

11.98

%

 

6.01

%

 

12.09

%

 

6.75

%

 

10.70

%

 

 

5.82

%

 

12.43

%

 

5.98

%

 

11.98

%

 

Expected long-term rate of return on plan assets

 

8.00

%

 

11.81

%

 

8.49

%

 

11.76

%

 

8.51

%

 

14.30

%

 

 

8.00

%

 

12.27

%

 

8.00

%

 

11.81

%

 

Rate of compensation increase

 

4.75

%

 

6.97

%

 

4.75

%

 

7.10

%

 

4.75

%

 

7.40

%

 

 

4.75

%

 

6.96

%

 

4.75

%

 

6.97

%

 

 

A subsidiary of the Company has a defined benefit obligation of $494$523 million and $446$494 million at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, respectively, and uses salary bands to determine future benefit costs rather than a rate of compensation increases. Rates of compensation increases in the table above do not include amounts related to this specific defined benefit plan.

The Company establishes its estimated long-term return on plan assets considering various factors, which include the targeted asset allocation percentages, historic returns, and expected future returns.

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost:

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

Service cost

 

$

5

 

 

$

5

 

 

$

4

 

 

$

4

 

 

$

4

 

 

$

8

 

 

Interest cost

 

28

 

 

296

 

 

27

 

 

232

 

 

27

 

 

207

 

 

Expected return on plan assets

 

(28

)

 

(195

)

 

(28

)

 

(134

)

 

(23

)

 

(110

)

 

Amortization of intital net obligation (asset)

 

(1

)

 

(3

)

 

(1

)

 

(3

)

 

(1

)

 

 

 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

1

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

Amortization of net (gain) loss

 

3

 

 

5

 

 

4

 

 

8

 

 

3

 

 

32

 

 

Total pension cost

 

$

8

 

 

$

108

 

 

$

8

 

 

$

107

 

 

$

11

 

 

$

137

 

 


The following table summarizes the components of the net periodic benefit cost, both domestic and foreign, for the years ended December 31, 2004 through 2006.

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Components of Net Periodic Benefit Cost:

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Service cost

 

$

6

 

 

$

7

 

 

$

5

 

 

$

5

 

 

$

4

 

 

$

4

 

 

Interest cost

 

30

 

 

356

 

 

28

 

 

297

 

 

27

 

 

232

 

 

Expected return on plan assets

 

(29

)

 

(255

)

 

(29

)

 

(194

)

 

(28

)

 

(133

)

 

Amortization of initial net asset

 

 

 

(3

)

 

(1

)

 

(3

)

 

(1

)

 

(3

)

 

Amortization of prior service cost

 

2

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

Amortization of net loss

 

5

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

5

 

 

4

 

 

8

 

 

Total pension cost

 

$

14

 

 

$

107

 

 

$

8

 

 

$

110

 

 

$

8

 

 

$

108

 

 

 

For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, and 2003,$(102) million (prior to the adjustment for the adoption of SFAS No. 158), $(6) million, $18 million and $286$18 million, respectively, were included in other comprehensive income arising from a change in the additional minimum pension liability.

The Company’sfollowing table summarizes the amounts reflected in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2006 that have not yet been recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost.

 

 

December 31, 2006

 

 

 

Accumluated
Other
Comprehensive
Income

 

Amounts
expected to be
reclassified to
earnings in next
fiscal year

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Initial net transition asset

 

$

 

 

$

10

 

 

$

 

 

$

3

 

 

Prior service cost

 

 

 

(6

)

 

 

 

 

 

Unrecognized net actuarial loss

 

 

 

(178

)

 

 

 

(2

)

 

Total

 

$

 

 

$

(174

)

 

$

 

 

$

1

 

 

The following table summarizes the company’s target allocation for 20062007 and pension plan asset allocation, atboth domestic and foreign, as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004 are as follows:2005.

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage of Plan Assets

 

 

 

 

as of December 31,

 

 

 

 

Percentage of Plan Assets as of December 31,

 

 

Target Allocation

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

Target Allocations

 

2006

 

2005

 

Asset Category

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

Equity Securities

Equity Securities

 

0% – 63%

 

0% – 20%

 

62.76

%

24.96

%

63.27

%

20.75

%

Equity Securities

 

58% - 68%

 

23% - 33%

 

67.40

%

28.97

%

62.79

%

23.68

%

Debt Securities

Debt Securities

 

0% – 33%

 

0% – 77%

 

33.50

%

70.49

%

36.26

%

75.21

%

Debt Securities

 

28% - 38%

 

60% - 69%

 

25.04

%

64.11

%

33.45

%

71.75

%

Real Estate

Real Estate

 

0% – 4%

 

0% – 2%

 

3.74

%

2.98

%

0.00

%

2.54

%

Real Estate

 

0% - 5%

 

0% - 5%

 

2.89

%

2.18

%

3.76

%

2.95

%

Other

Other

 

0%

 

0% – 1%

 

0.00

%

1.57

%

0.47

%

1.50

%

Other

 

0% - 0%

 

3% - 8%

 

4.67

%

4.75

%

0.00

%

1.62

%

Total

 

 

 

 

 

100.00

%

100.00

%

100.00

%

100.00

%

Total pension cost

Total pension cost

 

 

 

 

 

100.00

%

100.00

%

100.00

%

100.00

%

 

The U.S. Plans seek to achieve the following long-term investment objectives:

·       Maintenance of sufficient income and liquidity to pay retirement benefits and other lump sum payments;


·       Long-term rate of return in excess of the annualized inflation rate;

·       Long-term rate of return (net of relevant fees that meet or exceed the assumed actuarial rate);

·       Long termLong-term competitive rate of return on investments, net of expenses, that is equal to or exceeds various benchmark rates.


Consistent with the above, the allocation is reviewed intermittently to determine a suitable asset allocation which seeks to control risk through portfolio diversification and takes into account, among possible other factors, the above-stated objectives, in conjunction with current funding levels, cash flow conditions and economic and industry trends.

The investment strategy of the foreign plans seeks to maximize return on investment while minimizing risk. Our assumed asset allocation uses a lower exposure to equities to closely match market conditions and near term forecasts.

The following table summarizes the scheduled cash flows for U.S. and foreign expected employer contributions and expected future benefit payments, are as follows (in millions):both domestic and foreign.

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

 

U.S.

 

Foreign

 

Expected employer contribution in 2006

 

$

3

 

$

206

 

 

(in millions)

 

Expected employer contribution in 2007

 

$

3

 

$

123

 

Expected benefit payments for fiscal year ending:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006

 

$

30

 

$

252

 

2007

 

$

30

 

$

259

 

 

30

 

289

 

2008

 

$

31

 

$

271

 

 

31

 

298

 

2009

 

$

31

 

$

281

 

 

31

 

309

 

2010

 

$

32

 

$

291

 

 

32

 

460

 

2011 – 2015

 

$

173

 

$

1,637

 

2011

 

33

 

331

 

2012 - 2016

 

183

 

1,839

 

 

13.          FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

The fair value of current financial assets, current financial liabilities, and debt service reserves and other deposits are estimated to be equal to their reported carrying amounts. The fair value of non-recourse debt, excluding capital leases, is estimated differently based upon the type of loan. For variable rate loans, carrying value approximates fair value. For fixed rate loans, the fair value is estimated using quoted market prices or discounted cash flow analyses. The fair value of interest rate swap, cap and floor agreements, foreign currency forwards and swaps, and energy derivatives is the estimated net amount that the Company would receive or pay to terminate the agreements as of the balance sheet date.

The estimated fair values of the Company’s assets and liabilities have been determined using available market information. The estimates are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Company could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts.


The following table summarizes the estimated fair values of the Company’s short-term investments, debt and derivative financial instruments, as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004 are as follows (in millions):2005.

 

December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

Current

 

Noncurrent

 

 

 

Current

 

Noncurrent

 

 

 

 

Carrying

 

Carrying

 

Fair

 

Carrying

 

Carrying

 

Fair

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

Amount

 

Amount

 

Value

 

Amount

 

Amount

 

Value

 

 

Current
Carrying
Amount

 

Noncurrent
Carrying
Amount

 

Fair
Value

 

Current

Carrying
Amount

 

Noncurrent
Carrying
Amount

 

Fair
Value

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short-term investments

 

 

$

203

 

 

 

$

 

 

$

203

 

 

$

268

 

 

 

$

 

 

$

268

 

Investments

 

 

$

640

 

 

 

$

47

 

 

$

687

 

 

$

199

 

 

 

$

 

 

$

199

 

Energy derivatives

 

 

$

19

 

 

 

$

136

 

 

$

155

 

 

$

26

 

 

 

$

161

 

 

$

187

 

 

 

111

 

 

 

212

 

 

323

 

 

29

 

 

 

154

 

 

183

 

Foreign currency forwards and swaps

 

 

$

3

 

 

 

$

 

 

$

3

 

 

$

52

 

 

 

$

 

 

$

52

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

9

 

 

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest rate swaps

 

 

$

2

 

 

 

$

3

 

 

$

5

 

 

$

4

 

 

 

$

2

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

4

 

 

2

 

 

 

3

 

 

5

 

Stock warrants

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-recourse debt

 

 

$

1,598

 

 

 

$

11,226

 

 

$

13,670

 

 

$

1,619

 

 

 

$

11,817

 

 

$

14,355

 

Non-recourse debt

 

 

$

1,453

 

 

 

$

10,102

 

 

$

11,987

 

 

$

1,447

 

 

 

$

10,638

 

 

$

12,925

 

Recourse debt

 

 

$

200

 

 

 

$

4,682

 

 

$

5,139

 

 

$

142

 

 

 

$

5,010

 

 

$

5,621

 

 

 

 

 

 

4,790

 

 

5,050

 

 

200

 

 

 

4,682

 

 

5,139

 

Energy derivatives

 

 

$

201

 

 

 

$

118

 

 

$

319

 

 

$

82

 

 

 

$

38

 

 

$

120

 

 

 

14

 

 

 

56

 

 

70

 

 

204

 

 

 

123

 

 

327

 

Foreign currency forwards and swaps

 

 

$

47

 

 

 

$

57

 

 

$

104

 

 

$

66

 

 

 

$

42

 

 

$

108

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

16

 

 

50

 

 

48

 

 

 

57

 

 

105

 

Interest rate swaps

 

 

$

31

 

 

 

$

140

 

 

$

171

 

 

$

69

 

 

 

$

183

 

 

$

252

 

 

 

19

 

 

 

82

 

 

101

 

 

27

 

 

 

101

 

 

128

 

Interest rate caps and floors

 

 

$

3

 

 

 

$

14

 

 

$

17

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

18

 

 

$

26

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

10

 

 

11

 

 

3

 

 

 

14

 

 

17

 

 

Amounts in the table above include the carrying amount and fair value of financial instruments of discontinued operations and assets held for sale.

The fair value estimates presented herein are based on pertinent information as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004.2005. The Company is not aware of any factors that would significantly affect the estimated fair value amounts since December 31, 2005.2006.

14.          STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

SALE OF STOCK—In June 2003, the Company sold 49.5 million shares of common stock at $7.00 per share. Net proceeds from the offering were $334 million.

SHARES ISSUED FOR DEBT

During 2004, the Company issued 19.7 million shares of common stock at an average price of $8.52 per share in exchange for approximately $165 million in Senior Subordinated Notes. This resulted in a gain on retirement of debt of approximately $5 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

During 2003, the Company issued 12.2 million shares of common stock at an average price of $5.12 per share, in exchange for approximately $77 million in Senior Subordinated Notes. This resulted in a gain on retirement of debt of approximately $14 million for the year ended December 31, 2003.

SUBSIDIARY SALE OF SUBSIDIARY STOCK FOR FORGIVENESS OF DEBTAND BRASILIANA RESTRUCTURING

On December 22, 2003, the Company concluded negotiations with the Brazilian National Development Bank (“BNDES”) and its wholly owned subsidiary, BNDES Participações S.A. (“BNDESPAR”), to restructure the outstanding indebtedness of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries AES Transgas and AES Elpa, the holding companies of AES Eletropaulo (“BNDES Debt Restructuring”). On January 19, 2004 and on January 23, 2004, approvals were received on the BNDES Debt Restructuring from ANEEL and the Brazilian Central Bank, respectively. The transaction became effective on January 30, 2004 after the required approvals were obtained and a payment of $90 million was made by AES to BNDES.

142




Under the BNDES Debt Restructuring, all of the Company’s equity interests in AES Eletropaulo, AES Uruguaiana Empreendimentos Ltda. (“AES Uruguaiana”) and AES Tietê S.A. (“AES Tietê”) were transferred to Brasiliana Energia, S.A. (“Brasiliana Energia”Brasiliana”), a holding company created for the debt restructuring. The debt at AES Elpa and AES Transgas was also transferred to Brasiliana Energia.Brasiliana.


In exchange for the termination of $863 million of outstanding Brasiliana Energia debt and accrued interest during 2004, the Brazilian National Development Bank (“BNDES”) received $90 million in cash, 53.85% ownership of Brasiliana Energia and a one-year call option (“Sul Option”) to acquire a 53.85% ownership interest of Sul. The Sul Option, which would require the Company to contribute its equity interest in Sul to Brasiliana, Energia, became exercisable on December 22, 2005. The probability of BNDES exercising the Sul Option is unknown at this time. BNDES’s ability to exercise the Sul Option is contingent upon several factors. The most significant factor requires BNDES to obtain consent for the exercise of the option from the Sul syndicated lenders. In the event BNDES exercises its option, 100% of the Company’s ownership in Sul would be transferred to Brasiliana Energia and the Company would be required to recognize a non-cash estimated loss on its investment in Sul currently estimated at approximately $521 million. This amount primarily includes the recognition of currency translation losses and recording minority interest for BNDES’s share of Sul offset by the recorded estimated fair value of the Sul Option. If the Company’s ownership in Sul was transferred to Brasiliana Energia, the Company’s ownership share would be reduced from approximately 100% to 46%. The debt refinancing was accounted for as a modification of a debt instrument; therefore, the $20 million of face value of remaining debt due in excess of carrying value will be amortized using the effective interest rate method over the life of the debt.

To effect the new ownership structure, Brasiliana Energia issued 50.01% of its common shares to AES and the remainder to BNDES. It also issued a majority of its non-voting preferred shares to BNDES. As a result, BNDES effectively owns 53.85% of the total capital of Brasiliana Energia.Brasiliana. Pursuant to the shareholders’ agreement, AES controls Brasiliana Energia through its ownership of a majority of the voting shares of the company.

As a result of the stock issuance, AES recorded minority interest of $189$181 million for BNDES’s share of Brasiliana Energia.Brasiliana. In addition, the estimated fair value of the Sul Option of $37 million was recorded as a liability and will bewas marked-to-market in future quarters to reflect the changes in the underlying value of AES Sul, prior to BNDES’s exercise or the expiration of its call option. The value of the Sul Option as of December 31, 2005 remained $37 million.

AES treated the issuance of new shares in Brasiliana Energia to BNDES as a capital transaction in accordance with SAB 51. The net gain of $473$482 million has been reported as an adjustment to AES’s additional paid-in capital on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

In June 2006, BNDES and AES reached an agreement to terminate the Sul Option in exchange for the transfer of another wholly owned AES subsidiary, AES Infoenergy Ltda. to Brasiliana and $15 million in cash. The remaining outstandingagreement closed on August 15, 2006 resulting in a gain on sale of investment of $9 million, net of income taxes of $1 million, including the extinguishment of the Sul Option.

Starting in late September 2006, a consolidated AES subsidiary, Brasiliana, entered into a series of transactions to repay debt owed to BNDESPARissued by Brasiliana Energia includeswhich was held by BNDES, a Brazilian governmental agency, and to refinance certain other debts in the ownership chain of Brasiliana.

In September 2006, Brasiliana’s wholly owned subsidiary, Transgás, sold 13.76 billion preferred class-B shares, representing 33% economic ownership, in Eletropaulo, a regulated electric utility in Brazil. The preferred class-B shares hold no voting rights. As a result, there was no change in Brasiliana’s voting interest in Eletropaulo, and Brasiliana continues to control Eletropaulo. Brasiliana received approximately $510$522 million in net proceeds on the sale of convertible debentures, non-recourseits shares on the open market, at a price per share of Brazilian real $.0085 (approximately $.04/share). On October 5, 2006, the over-allotment option (2.064 billion shares, or 5% ownership in Eletropaulo) associated with the secondary offering was exercised, at a price per share of Brazilian real $.0085 (approximately $.04/share). Proceeds from the over-allotment option totaled $80 million.

As a result of these transactions, Brasiliana’s economic ownership in Eletropaulo was reduced from 73% to 35% and therefore AES’s economic ownership in Eletropaulo was reduced from 34% to 16%. AES (“Convertible Debentures”). Thecontinues to control and consolidate Eletropaulo as a result of its 50.01% voting interest in Brasiliana’s successor company, which continues to own a 74% voting interest in Eletropaulo, in the form of common shares and preferred class-A shares.

Brasiliana entered into the following debt restructuring transactions to reduce leverage, eliminate U.S. dollar denominated Convertible Debentures bear interest at a nominal stated ratedebt and eliminate restrictive covenants (including an existing cash sweep) that prevented the payment of 9.0% per annum, an effective rate of 9.32%, and will amortize over an 11 year period with principal repayments beginning in 2007. Principal payments of $20 million, $45 million and $445 million will be due in 2007, 2008 and thereafter, respectively.dividends from Brasiliana Energia may not pay any dividends until 2007, at which point it may pay dividends up to 10% of its available cash to its shareholders.shareholders:

In the event of a default under the Convertible Debentures, the debentures can be converted·       On October 2, 2006, Brasiliana repaid in full $608 million in principal and accrued interest on debt held by BNDESPAR into common shares of Brasiliana Energia in an amount sufficient to give BNDESPAR operational and managerial control of Brasiliana Energia. Under the terms of the BNDES Debt Restructuring, the Company will, subject to certain protective rights granted to BNDESPAR under the Restructuring Documents, retain operational and managerial control of AES Eletropaulo, AES Uruguaiana and AES Tietê as long as no default under the Convertible Debentures occurs. In the event of a default, a provision for default and penalty interest would be payable to BNDESPAR.BNDES;


·       On October 30, 2006, the successor to Brasiliana, Companhia Brasiliana de Energia, repaid in full $94 million of principal and accrued interest in addition to a prepayment premium of $2 million, and;

·       On November 3, 2006, AES IHB Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary in the Brasiliana ownership chain, repaid in full $280 million of principal and accrued interest in addition to a prepayment premium of $42 million.

These debts were repaid prior to the scheduled maturity date and were funded primarily by the sale of the Eletropaulo preferred class-B shares held by Transgás and the issuance of $373 million of Brazilian real denominated debt on October 30, 2006. The debt issuance on October 30, 2006 was an interim financing until the necessary local regulatory approvals were received on December 28, 2006 when the final debt was issued. The debt bears interest at the Brazilian interbank rate plus 2.25% and matures May 20, 2016.

For the year ended 2006, AES recognized a $539 million loss on the sale of Eletropaulo shares and debt restructuring that was comprised of several components, the largest of which resulted from the recognition of previously deferred currency translation losses. In addition, a $22 million loss was included in derivative foreign currency transaction losses. Also recognized on the transaction were an income tax benefit of $175 million, loss on extinguishment of debt of $73 million and minority interest expense of $53 million. The net after-tax loss on the sale and debt restructuring was $512 million.

RESTRICTED STOCKACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSS

The Company issued restricted stock units under its long-term compensation plan during 2004following table summarizes the balances comprising accumulated other comprehensive loss, as of December 31, 2006 and 2005. The restricted stock units are generally granted based upon a percentage of the participant’s base salary. The units have a three-year vesting schedule and vest in one-third increments over the three year period. The units are then required to be held for an additional two years before they can be redeemed for shares, and thus become transferable. Shares issued to officers of the Company are issued at a premium since the vesting is subject to meeting specific performance objectives. The Company issued 1,031,082 restricted stock units in 2005 and 1,847,670 in 2004, and recorded approximately $10 million and $5 million in compensation expense

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment

 

$

2,336

 

 

$

3,027

 

 

Unrealized derivative losses

 

126

 

 

400

 

 

Effect of SFAS No. 158

 

(94

)

 

 

 

Minimum pension liability

 

229

 

 

229

 

 

Securities available for sale

 

3

 

 

 

 

Total

 

$

2,600

 

 

$

3,656

 

 


(1)          See Note 1 related to these awards for 2005 and 2004, respectively.the restated consolidated financial statements

15.          SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

STOCK OPTIONSThe CompanyAES grants options to purchase shares of common stock under three stock option plans. Under the terms of the plans, the Company may issue options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at a price equal to 100% of the market price at the date the option is granted. Generally, stockStock options are generally granted based upon a percentage of an employee’s base salary. Stock options issued under this plan become exercisable by employeesthese plans in as little as one year (100%2004, 2005 and 2006 have a three-year vesting schedule and vest in one year), or as many as four years (25% each year).one-third increments over the three-year period. The stock options have a contractual term of 10 years. At December 31, 2005, 13,878,6392006, approximately 11 million shares were remaining for award under the plans. The maximum term of theIn all circumstances, stock options granted is 10 years.

A summaryby AES do not entitle the holder the right, or obligate AES, to settle the stock option in cash or other assets of the option activity follows (in thousands of shares):

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

 

 

Weighted-

 

 

 

Weighted-

 

 

 

Weighted-

 

 

 

 

 

Average

 

 

 

Average

 

 

 

Average

 

 

 

 

 

Exercise

 

 

 

Exercise

 

 

 

Exercise

 

 

 

Shares

 

Price

 

Shares

 

Price

 

Shares

 

Price

 

Outstanding—beginning of year

 

39,162

 

 

$

14.19

 

 

40,816

 

 

$

13.59

 

 

33,244

 

 

$

16.37

 

 

Exercised during the year

 

(4,772

)

 

5.70

 

 

(3,251

)

 

4.50

 

 

(570

)

 

5.18

 

 

Forfeited and expired during the year

 

(847

)

 

16.40

 

 

(1,133

)

 

10.12

 

 

(976

)

 

12.61

 

 

Granted during the year

 

1,514

 

 

16.80

 

 

2,730

 

 

8.98

 

 

9,118

 

 

2.97

 

 

Outstanding—end of year

 

35,057

 

 

$

15.51

 

 

39,162

 

 

$

14.19

 

 

40,816

 

 

$

13.59

 

 

Eligible for exercise—end of year

 

31,960

 

 

$

15.82

 

 

32,737

 

 

$

15.96

 

 

31,910

 

 

$

16.56

 

 

The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding at December 31, 2005 (in thousands of shares):

 

 

Options Outstanding

 

Options Exercisable

 

 

 

 

 

Weighted-

 

Weighted-

 

 

 

Weighted-

 

 

 

 

 

Average

 

Average

 

 

 

Average

 

 

 

Total

 

Remaining

 

Exercise

 

Total

 

Exercise

 

Range of Exercise Prices

 

 

 

Outstanding

 

Life

 

Price

 

Exercisable

 

Price

 

 

 

 

 

(In Years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$ 0.78 – $ 3.24

 

 

5,581

 

 

 

7.0

 

 

 

$

2.74

 

 

 

5,431

 

 

 

$

2.74

 

 

$ 3.25 – $ 9.88

 

 

2,597

 

 

 

7.3

 

 

 

8.62

 

 

 

1,115

 

 

 

8.18

 

 

$ 9.89 – $14.40

 

 

18,274

 

 

 

5.4

 

 

 

13.04

 

 

 

18,265

 

 

 

13.04

 

 

$14.41 – $22.85

 

 

4,225

 

 

 

4.8

 

 

 

17.49

 

 

 

2,771

 

 

 

17.85

 

 

$22.86 – $58.00

 

 

4,371

 

 

 

4.7

 

 

 

44.26

 

 

 

4,369

 

 

 

44.26

 

 

$58.01 – $80.00

 

 

9

 

 

 

4.7

 

 

 

61.42

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

61.42

 

 

Total

 

 

35,057

 

 

 

5.6

 

 

 

$

15.51

 

 

 

31,960

 

 

 

$

15.82

 

 

AES.


The weighted average fair value of each option grant has been estimated, as of the date of grant primarilydate, using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

Interest rate (risk-free)

 

4.47

%

3.83

%

4.25

%

Volatility

 

53

%

62

%

69

%

Dividend yield

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Expected volatility

 

30

%

68

%

68

%

Expected annual dividend yield

 

0

%

0

%

0

%

Expected option term (years)

 

6

 

10

 

10

 

Risk Free interest rate

 

4.63

%

4.35

%

3.81

%

 

Using these assumptions, and anPrior to January 1, 2006, the Company used the historic volatility of the daily closing price of its stock over the same term as the expected option lifeterm, as its expected volatility to determine the fair value using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Beginning January 1, 2006, the Company exclusively relies on implied volatility as the expected volatility to determine the fair value using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The implied volatility may be exclusively relied upon due to the following factors:

·       The Company utilizes a valuation model that is based on a constant volatility assumption to value its employee share options;

·       The implied volatility is derived from options to purchase AES stock that are actively traded;

·       The market prices of approximately 10both the traded options and the underlying share are measured at a similar point in time to each other and on a date reasonably close to the grant date of the employee share options;

·       The traded options have exercise prices that are both near-the-money and close to the exercise price of the employee share options; and

·       The remaining maturities of the traded options on which the estimate is based are at least one year.

Prior to January 1, 2006, the Company used a 10-year expected term to determine the fair value using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. This term also equals the contractual term of its stock options. Pursuant to SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 107, the Company now uses a simplified method to determine the expected term based on the average of the original contractual term and the pro-rata vesting term. Pursuant to SAB No. 107, this simplified method may be used for stock options granted during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2007, as the Company refines its estimate of the expected term of its stock options. This simplified method may be used as the Company’s stock options have the following characteristics:

·       The stock options are granted at-the-money;

·       Exercisability is conditional only on performing service through the vesting date;

·       If an employee terminates service prior to vesting, the employee forfeits the stock options;

·       If an employee terminates service after vesting, the employee has a limited time to exercise the stock option; and

·       The stock option is not transferable and nonhedgeable.

The Company does not discount the grant date fair values determined to estimate post-vesting restrictions. Post-vesting restrictions include black-out periods when the employee is not able to exercise stock options based on their potential knowledge of information prior to the release of that information to the public.


Using the above assumptions, the weighted average fair value of each stock option granted was $11.51, $6.58$6.82, $13.18, and $2.65,$6.66, for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively.

The following table summarizes the components of the Company’s stock-based compensation related to its employee stock options recognized in the Company’s financial statements:

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Pre-tax compensation expense

 

 

$

17

 

 

 

$

15

 

 

 

$

17

 

 

Tax benefit

 

 

$

(5

)

 

 

$

(4

)

 

 

$

(4

)

 

Stock Options expense, net of tax

 

 

$

12

 

 

 

$

11

 

 

 

$

13

 

 

Total intrinsic value of options exercised

 

 

$

78

 

 

 

$

48

 

 

 

$

20

 

 

Total fair value of options vested

 

 

$

12

 

 

 

$

15

 

 

 

$

12

 

 

Cash Received from the exercise of stock options

 

 

$

78

 

 

 

$

27

 

 

 

$

15

 

 

Windfall tax benefits realized from the exercised stock options

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

14

 

 

 

$

5

 

 

Cash used to settle stock options

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

Total compensation cost capitalized as part of the cost of an asset

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

As of December 31, 2006, $16 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to stock options is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of approximately 1.6 years. There were no modifications to stock option awards during the year ended December 31, 2006.

A summary of the option activity for year ended December 31, 2006 follows (number of options in thousands, $ in millions except per option amounts):

 

 

Options

 

Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price

 

Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term

 

Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(in years)

 

 

 

Outstanding at December 31, 2005

 

 

35,057

 

 

 

$

15.53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exercised

 

 

(8,008

)

 

 

9.70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forfeited and expired

 

 

(466

)

 

 

24.39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted

 

 

2,428

 

 

 

17.58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding at December 31, 2006

 

 

29,011

 

 

 

$

17.19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vested and expected to vest at December 31, 2006

 

 

28,741

 

 

 

$

17.20

 

 

 

5.1

 

 

 

$

234

 

 

Eligible for exercise at December 31, 2006

 

 

24,956

 

 

 

$

17.45

 

 

 

4.6

 

 

 

$

209

 

 

The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pre-tax intrinsic value (the difference between the Company’s closing stock price on the last trading day of the fourth quarter of 2006 and 2003,the exercise price, multiplied by the number of in-the-money options) that would have been received by the option holders had all option holders exercised their options on December 31, 2006. The amount of the aggregate intrinsic value will change based on the fair market value of the Company’s stock.

174




The Company initially recognizes compensation cost on the estimated number of instruments for which the requisite service is expected to be rendered. As such, AES has estimated a forfeiture rate of 8.55% and 0% for stock options granted to non-officer employees and officer employees of AES, respectively. Those estimates shall be revised if subsequent information indicates that the actual number of instruments forfeited is likely to differ from previous estimates. Based on the estimated forfeiture rates, the Company expects to expense $16 million on a straight-line basis over a three year period (approximately $5 million per year) related to stock options granted during the year ended December 31, 2006.

The assumptions that the Company has made in determining the grant date fair value of its stock options and the estimated forfeiture rates represent its best estimate. The following table illustrates the effect on the grant date fair value and the annual expected expense for the stock options granted during the year ended December, 2006, using assumptions different from AES’s assumptions. The sensitivities are calculated by changing only the noted assumption and keeping all other assumptions used in our calculation constant. As such, the sensitivities may not be additive, so the impact of changing multiple factors simultaneously cannot be calculated by combining the individual sensitivities shown.

 

 

 

Change in
Total Grant
date Fair Values

 

Change in
Expected
Annual Expense

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Increase of expected volatility to 79%(*)

 

 

$

14

 

 

 

$

5

 

 

Increase of expected option term by 3 years

 

 

$

4

 

 

 

$

1

 

 

Decrease of expected option term by 3 years

 

 

$

(5

)

 

 

$

(2

)

 

Increase of expected forfeiture rates by 50%

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

Decrease of expected forfeiture rates by 50%

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 


(*)          The historic volatility of AES's daily closing stock price over a six-year period prior to the date of the 2006 annual grant was 79%.

ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE LOSSRESTRICTED STOCK

Restricted Stock Units Without Market Conditions—The balances comprising accumulated other comprehensive lossCompany issues restricted stock units (or “RSU”) without market conditions under its long-term compensation plan. The restricted stock units are asgenerally granted based upon a percentage of the participant’s base salary. The units have a three-year vesting schedule and vest in one-third increments over the three-year period. The units are then required to be held for an additional two years before they can be redeemed for shares, and thus become transferable.

For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, restricted stock units issued without a market condition had a grant date fair value equal to the closing price of the Company’s stock on the grant date. The Company does not discount the grant date fair values determined to estimate post-vesting restrictions. RSUs without a market condition granted to non-executive employees during the year ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004 had a grant date fair value per RSU of $17.57, $17.06 and $8.77.


The following table summarizes the components of the Company’s stock-based compensation related to its employee RSUs issued without market conditions recognized in the Company’s financial statements:

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Pre-tax RSU expense

 

 

$

10

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

3

 

 

Tax Benefit

 

 

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

RSU expense, net of tax

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

5

 

 

 

$

2

 

 

Total intrinsic value of RSUs converted(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total fair value of RSUs vested

 

 

7

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

Cash used to settle RSU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Compensation cost capitalized as part of the cost of an asset

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 


(1)          No RSU's were converted during the year ended December 31, 2006, 2005 or 2004.

As of December 31, 2006, $14 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to RSUs without the market condition is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of approximately 1.8 years. There were no modifications to RSU awards during the year ended December 31, 2006.

A summary of the restricted stock unit activity for the year ended December 31, 2006 follows (in millions)(amounts of RSUs in thousands, $ in millions except per unit amounts):

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment

 

$

3,029

 

$

3,086

 

Unrealized derivative losses

 

405

 

334

 

Minimum pension liability

 

227

 

221

 

TOTAL

 

$

3,661

 

$

3,641

 

 

 

RSUs

 

Weighted
Average
Grant-date
Fair Values

 

Weighted
Average
Remaining
Vesting Term

 

Aggregate
Intrinsic Value

 

Nonvested at December 31, 2005

 

1,385

 

 

$

12.98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vested year to date

 

(569

)

 

$

12.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forfeited and expired year to date

 

(103

)

 

$

14.55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted year to date

 

736

 

 

$

17.57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonvested at December 31, 2006

 

1,449

 

 

$

15.53

 

 

 

1.8

 

 

 

$

32

 

 

Vested at December 31, 2006

 

940

 

 

$

10.81

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

21

 

 

Vested and expected to vest at December 31, 2006

 

2,317

 

 

$

13.60

 

 

 

1.8

 

 

 

$

51

 

 

 

The weighted average grant date fair value of RSUs without a market condition granted during year ended December 31, 2006, was $17.57. The fair value of RSUs without a market condition that vested during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 was $7 million and $3 million, respectively. Units of RSUs without a market condition vesting during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 were 569 thousand and 370 thousand, respectively. No RSUs without a market condition vested during the year ended December 31, 2004. No RSUs were converted during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.

The total grant date fair value of RSUs granted without a market condition was $13 million during the year ended December 31, 2006.

15.Restricted Stock Units With Market Conditions—Restricted stock units issued to officers of the Company have a three-year vesting schedule and include a market condition to vest. Vesting will occur if the applicable continued employment conditions are satisfied and the Total Stockholder Return (“TSR”) on AES common stock exceeds the TSR of the Standard and Poor’s 500 (“S&P 500”) over the three-year measurement period beginning on January 1st in the year of grant and ending after three years on December 31st. In certain situations where the TSR of both AES common stock and the S&P 500 exhibit a


gain over the measurement period, the grant may vest without the TSR of AES stock exceeding the TSR of the S&P 500, if the Compensation Committee does not exercise its discretion not to permit such vesting. The units are then required to be held for an additional two years subsequent to vesting before they can be redeemed for shares, and thus become transferable. In all circumstances, restricted stock units granted by AES do not entitle the holder the right, or obligate AES, to settle the restricted stock unit in cash or other assets of AES.

The effect of the market condition on restricted stock units issued to officers of the Company is reflected in the award’s fair value on the grant date for the year ended December 31, 2006. A discount of 64.4% was applied to the closing price of the Company’s stock on the date of grant to estimate the fair value to reflect the market condition for RSUs with market conditions granted during the year ended December 31, 2006. RSUs that included a market condition granted during year ended December 31, 2006 had a grant date fair value per RSU of $11.32.

All restricted stock units issued during the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 had a grant date fair value equal to the closing price of the Company’s stock on the grant date regardless if the grant included a market condition. No discount to the closing price of the Company’s stock on the date of grant was applied to RSUs that included a market condition granted during the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004. RSUs granted with a market condition during the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 had a grant date fair value per RSU of $16.81 and $8.62, respectively.

The following table summarizes the components of the Company’s stock-based compensation related to its RSUs granted with market conditions recognized in the Company’s financial statements:

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Pre-tax RSU expense

 

 

$

4

 

 

 

$

3

 

 

 

$

2

 

 

Tax Benefit

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

RSU expense, net of tax

 

 

$

3

 

 

 

$

2

 

 

 

$

1

 

 

Total intrinsic value of RSUs converted(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total fair value of RSUs vested

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash used to settle RSU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Compensation cost capitalized as part of the cost of an asset

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 


(1)          No RSU's were converted during the year ended December 31, 2006, 2005 or 2004.

As of December 31, 2006, $5 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to RSUs with a market condition is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of approximately 1.7 years. There were no modifications to RSU awards during the year ended December 31, 2006.


A summary of the restricted stock unit activity for the year ended December 31, 2006 follows (amounts of RSUs in thousands, $ in millions except per unit amounts):

 

 

RSUs

 

Weighted
Average
Grant-date
Fair Values

 

Weighted
Average
Remaining
Vesting Term

 

Aggregate
Intrinsic Value

 

Nonvested at December 31, 2005

 

912

 

 

$

11.55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vested year to date

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forfeited and expired year to date

 

(64

)

 

$

13.14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted year to date

 

347

 

 

$

11.32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonvested at December 31, 2006

 

1,195

 

 

$

11.40

 

 

 

1.7

 

 

 

$

26

 

 

Vested at December 31, 2006

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

Vested and expected to vest at December 31, 2006

 

1,195

 

 

$

11.40

 

 

 

1.7

 

 

 

$

26

 

 

The weighted average grant date fair value of RSUs with a market condition granted during year ended December 31, 2006, was $11.32. No RSUs with a market condition vested during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. No RSUs were converted during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.

The total grant date fair value of RSUs with a market condition granted during the year ended December 31, 2006 was $4 million. If no discount was applied to reflect the market condition for RSUs issued to officers, the total grant date fair value of RSUs with a market condition granted during year ended December 31, 2006 would have increased by $2 million.

16.   OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)

The components of other income are summarized as follows (in millions):follows:

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

Gain on extinguishment of liabilities

 

$

45

 

$

82

 

$

72

 

Gain on sale of assets

 

$

10

 

$

14

 

$

 

 

19

 

12

 

14

 

Gain on extinguishment of liabilities

 

70

 

78

 

141

 

Legal/dispute settlement

 

9

 

11

 

 

Other income

 

72

 

60

 

30

 

Insurance proceeds

 

13

 

11

 

 

Legal/dispute settlement .

 

1

 

10

 

11

 

Other

 

37

 

56

 

60

 

Total other income

 

$

161

 

$

163

 

$

171

 

 

$

115

 

$

171

 

$

157

 

 

The components of other expense are summarized as follows (in millions):follows:

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

Loss on extinguishment of liabilities

 

$

(181

)

$

(17

)

$

(36

)

Write-down of disallowed regulatory assets .

 

(36

)

 

 

Legal/dispute settlement

 

(30

)

(30

)

(5

)

Loss on sale and disposal of assets

 

(28

)

(53

)

(26

)

Marked-to-market loss on commodity derivatives

 

$

 

$

(5

)

$

(23

)

 

 

 

(5

)

Loss on sale and disposal of assets

 

(39

)

(23

)

 

Loss on extinguishment of liabilities

 

(17

)

(38

)

(39

)

Legal/dispute settlement

 

(2

)

(5

)

 

Other expenses

 

(84

)

(80

)

(44

)

Other

 

(33

)

(32

)

(51

)

Total other expense

 

$

(142

)

$

(151

)

$

(106

)

 

$

(308

)

$

(132

)

$

(123

)


17.   ASSET IMPAIRMENT

 

 

Asset
Impairment
Expense

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

2006

 

 

$

29

 

 

2005

 

 

$

16

 

 

2004

 

 

$

50

 

 

 

16.   OTHER SALES OF ASSETS AND ASSET IMPAIRMENT EXPENSES

AllDuring the fourth quarter of 2006, as a result of performing the annual goodwill impairment analysis of AES China Generating Co. Ltd (Chigen) in accordance with SFAS No. 142, a potential impairment of its equity investment in Wuhu, a coal-fired plant located in China, was identified. As part of the gains (losses) discussed below aresubsequent impairment analysis, the fair value of this investment was analyzed and determined to be less than the carrying value, resulting in a pre-tax impairment charge of $6 million. Chigen is reported in the Asia Generation segment.

In June 2006, AES recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of $4.7 million related to five gas turbines that were classified as held-for-sale at Empresa Generadora de Electricidad Itabo, S.A. (Itabo). The impairment loss was recognized based on bids received from potential buyers that indicated the market value of the turbines was lower than the carrying value. Itabo is included in loss on salethe results of investments and asset impairment expensethe Latin America Generation segment. AES began consolidating Itabo subsequent to its purchase of an additional ownership interest in May 2006.

In April 2006, AES Ironwood, a gas-fired combined cycle generation plant located in the accompanying consolidated statementsUnited States, entered into a forced outage while it performed necessary repairs to correct damage to one of operations.its combustion turbines. The damages sustained to the combustion turbine resulted in a pre-tax impairment charge of $11 million. AES Ironwood is reported in the North America Generation segment.

During the third quarter of 2005, AES was notified of the sole managing member’s intention to dissolve, liquidate, and terminate Totem Gas Storage LLC. In accordance with APB No. 18, the recoverability of AES’s investment in Totem was analyzed, and as a result, a pre-tax impairment charge of $6 million was recorded. In the fourth quarter of 2004, AES recorded a pre-tax impairment charge of $1.5 million based upon an analysis of the recoverability of its investment in Totem at that time. Totem is included in the results of the North America Generation segment.

During 2004, two generation unit assets with a net book value of $9 million were classified as held-for-sale at AES Southland. In the first quarter of 2005, in the course of evaluating the impairment of long-lived assets in accordance with SFAS No. 144, AES determined that the net book value of the peaker unit assets was not fully realizable and a pre-tax impairment charge of $5 million was recorded. By December 31, 2005, AES was able to sell $1.5 million of the peaker unit assets and determined the remaining carrying amount of these assets was not realizable and an additional pre-tax impairment charge of $2.5 million was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2005. AES Southland is reported in the North America Generation segment.

During the fourth quarter of 2004, AES made a decision to sell Aixi, a coal-fired power plant located in China, due to circumstances surrounding its operational performance.China. In accordance with


SFAS No. 144, the recoverability of this asset group was tested and as a result, a pre-tax impairment charge of $15 million was recorded. Further pre-tax impairment charges of $1.4 million and $3.2 million were recorded for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively. Aixi is included in continuing operations and is reported in the contract generationAsia Generation segment.

In November 2004, AES wrote off $25 million of capitalized costs associated with emission-related improvements constructed at Deepwater, a petroleum coke-fire cogeneration plant, when it was


determined that a different strategy would be used to reduce emissions and that the improvements had no alternative uses. Deepwater is reported in the competitive supplyNorth America Generation segment.

In December 2003, AES sold an approximate 39% ownership interest in AES Oasis Limited (“AES Oasis”) for cash proceeds of approximately $150 million. The loss realized on the transaction was approximately $36 million before and after income taxes. AES Oasis is an entity that owns an electric generation project in Oman (AES Barka) and two oil-fired generating facilities in Pakistan (AES Lal Pir and AES Pak Gen). AES Barka, AES Lal Pir, and AES Pak Gen are all contract generation businesses.

During the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company decided to discontinue the development of ZEG, a contract generation plant under construction in Poland. In connection with this decision, the Company wrote off its investment in ZEG of approximately $23 million before income taxes ($21 million after tax).

On August 8, 2003, the Company decided to discontinue the construction and development of AES Nile Power in Uganda (“Bujagali”). In connection with this decision, the Company wrote off its investment in Bujagali of approximately $76 million before income taxes ($67 million after tax) in the third quarter of 2003. Bujagali was a developing contract generation business.

During April 2003, after consideration of existing business conditions and future opportunities associated with the El Faro development project in Honduras, the Company decided to sell this project. The project was reported in the contract generation segment. The carrying amount of the investment in El Faro exceeded its fair value. As a result during the second quarter of 2003, AES wrote off its investment of approximately $20 million, before income taxes ($13 million after tax). In January 2004, the Company completed the sale of the project for nominal consideration.

17.18.   INCOME TAXES

INCOME TAX PROVISION

The following table summarizes the expense for income taxes on continuing operations, consistsas of the following (in millions):December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.

 

December 31,

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

(in millions)

 

Federal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current

 

$

3

 

$

7

 

$

5

 

 

$

(51

)

$

1

 

$

9

 

Deferred

 

20

 

32

 

(56

)

 

18

 

36

 

43

 

State:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

(3

)

1

 

 

Deferred

 

(11

)

36

 

(24

)

 

(15

)

(6

)

46

 

Foreign:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current

 

351

 

200

 

233

 

 

498

 

348

 

202

 

Deferred

 

101

 

84

 

52

 

 

(44

)

145

 

80

 

Total

 

$

465

 

$

359

 

$

211

 

 

$

403

 

$

525

 

$

380

 

 

146




EFFECTIVE AND STATUTORY RATE RECONCILIATIONA

The following table summarizes a reconciliation of the U.S. statutory Federal income tax rate to the Company’s effective tax rate, as a percentage of income before taxes is as follows:for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Statutory Federal tax rate

 

 

35

%

 

 

35

%

 

 

35

%

 

 

 

35

%

 

 

35

%

 

 

35

%

 

State taxes, net of Federal tax benefit

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

(3

)

 

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(1

)

 

 

5

 

 

Taxes on foreign earnings

 

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

13

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

5

 

 

Valuation allowance

 

 

(3

)

 

 

(3

)

 

 

(8

)

 

 

 

(16

)

 

 

(2

)

 

 

(2

)

 

Taxes on Domesticated Entities

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Other—net

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(9

)

 

Other—net

 

 

(1

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective tax rate

 

 

32

%

 

 

44

%

 

 

33

%

 

 

 

31

%

 

 

36

%

 

 

44

%

 

 

DEFERRED INCOME TAXESDeferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of (a) temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes, and (b) operating loss and tax credit carry forwards. These items are stated at the enacted tax rates that are expected to be in effect when taxes are actually paid or recovered.

As of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company had Federal net operating loss carry forwardscarryforwards for tax purposes of approximately $1.9$1.8 billion (approximately $56 million of which will be recorded to additional paid in capital when realized) expiring from 2018 to 2024   Federal2026, federal general business tax credit carry forwardscarryforwards for tax purposes of approximately $30 million, $28 million of which  expire in year 2006 and $2$11 million expiring from 20172021 to 2020. Federal2026, and federal alternative minimum tax credits of approximately $7 million that carry forward without expiration. As of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company had foreign net operating loss carry forwardscarryforwards of approximately $3.3$2.7 billion that expire at various times beginning in 20062007 and some of which carry forward without expiration, and tax credits available in


foreign jurisdictions of approximately $52$46 million, $1$3 million of which expire in 2008, $332007 to 2009, $28 million of which expire in 20092010 to 20172018 and $18$15 million of which carry forward without expiration. The Company had state net operating loss carry forwards as of December 31, 20052006 of approximately $2.0$2.4 billion expiring in years 20062010 to 2025.2026.

The valuation allowance decreased by $26$65 million during 20052006 to $1,380$1,488 million at December 31, 2005.2006. This net decrease was primarily the result of the removal of valuation allowance against deferred tax assets at foreign subsidiaries.

The valuation allowance increased by $6 million during 2005 to $1,553 million at December 31, 2005. This net increase was primarily the result of certain investment tax credits and increases in the Company’s capital loss carryforwards and certain state and foreign net operating losses whose ultimate realization is not known at this time.

The valuation allowance decreased by $225$215 million during 2004 to $1,406$1,547 million at December 31, 2004. This net decrease was primarily the result of the removal of valuation allowances attributable to capital loss carry forwards that no longer existed after the capital losses were reclassified to ordinary losses. The valuation allowance also increased due to certain foreign net operating loss carry forwards, the ultimate realization of which is not known at this time.

The valuation allowance increased $215 million during 2003 to $1,631 million at December 31, 2003. This net increase was primarily the result of certain investment tax credits and increases in the Company’s capital loss carry forwards and foreign net operating losses whose ultimate realization is not known at this time.

The Company believes that it is more likely than not that the remaining deferred tax assets as shown below will be realized when future taxable income is generated through the reversal of existing taxable temporary differences and income that is expected to be generated by businesses that have long-term contracts or a history of generating taxable income.


DeferredThe following table summarizes the deferred tax assets and liabilities, are as follows (in millions):of December 31, 2006 and 2005.

 

December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

Differences between book and tax basis of property

 

$

1,660

 

$

1,358

 

 

$

1,538

 

$

1,735

 

Other taxable temporary differences

 

143

 

333

 

 

257

 

167

 

Total deferred tax liability

 

1,803

 

1,691

 

 

$

1,795

 

$

1,902

 

Operating loss carry forwards

 

(1,795

)

(1,700

)

 

(1,713

)

(1,757

)

Capital loss carry forwards

 

(233

)

(255

)

 

(368

)

(397

)

Bad debt and other book provisions

 

(504

)

(412

)

 

(492

)

(503

)

Retirement costs

 

(203

)

(258

)

 

(172

)

(202

)

Tax credit carry forwards

 

(86

)

(107

)

 

(66

)

(83

)

Cumulative transaction allowances

 

(276

)

(276

)

Cumulative translation allowances

 

(280

)

(289

)

Other deductible temporary differences

 

(439

)

(403

)

 

(259

)

(490

)

Total gross deferred tax asset

 

(3,536

)

(3,411

)

 

(3,350

)

(3,721

)

Less: valuation allowance

 

1,380

 

1,406

 

 

1,488

 

1,553

 

Total net deferred tax asset

 

(2,156

)

(2,005

)

 

(1,862

)

(2,168

)

Net deferred tax asset

 

$

(353

)

$

(314

)

 

$

(67

)

$

(266

)

 

The Company considers undistributed earnings of certain foreign subsidiaries to be indefinitely reinvested outside of the United StatesU.S. and, accordingly, no U.S. deferred taxes have been recorded with respect to such earnings. Should the earnings be remitted as dividends, the Company may be subject to additional U.S. taxes, net of allowable foreign tax credits. It is not practicablepractical to estimate the amount of any additional taxes which may be payable on the undistributed earnings.

On October 22, 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act (“the AJCA”) was signed into law. The AJCA includes a deduction of 85% of certain foreign earnings that are repatriated, as defined in the AJCA. The Company conducted an evaluation of the effects of the repatriation provision in accordance with recently issued Treasury Department guidance. As a result, the Company has elected not to apply this provision to qualifying earnings repatriations in 2005.


The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are under examination by the relevant taxing authorities for various tax years. The Company regularly assesses the potential outcome of these examinations in each of the taxing jurisdictions when determining the adequacy of the provision for income taxes. Tax reserves have been established, which the Company believes to be adequate in relation to the potential for additional assessments. Once established, reserves are adjusted only when there is more information available or when an event occurs necessitating a change to the reserves. While the Company believes that the amount of the tax estimates is reasonable, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of current or future examinations may exceed current reserves in amounts that could be material but cannot be estimated as of December 31, 2005.2006.

Income from operations in certain countries is subject to reduced tax rates as a result of satisfying specific commitments regarding employment and capital investment. The Company’s income tax benefits related to the tax status of these operations are estimated to be $79$61 million, $34$78 million and $50$37 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, and 2003, respectively.


IncomeThe following table summarizes the income (loss) from continuing operations, before income taxes and minority interest, consisted offor the following (in millions):years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.

 

December 31,

 

 

Years Ended December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

(in millions)

 

U.S.

 

$

(75

)

$

(131

)

$

(158

)

 

$

(115

)

$

(103

)

$

(158

)

Non-U.S.

 

1,533

 

953

 

802

 

 

1,414

 

1,571

 

1,017

 

Total

 

$

1,458

 

$

822

 

$

644

 

 

$

1,299

 

$

1,468

 

$

859

 

 

18.19.   SUBSIDIARY PREFERRED STOCK

Minority interest includes $60 $60million of cumulative preferred stock of subsidiaries at December 31, 20052006 and 2004.2005. The total annual dividend requirement was approximately $3million at December 31, 20052006 and 2004.2005. Each series of preferred stock is redeemable solely at the option of the issuer at prices between $101 and $118 per share.

19.20.   DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

Consistent with one of its 2003 strategic initiatives, the Company continued its efforts to sell certain subsidiaries during 2004, all of which were sold as of December 31, 2004. No operations qualified for classification as discontinued operations as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005. All of the business components and gains (losses) discussed below are classified as discontinued operations in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

The following table summarizes the income (loss) on disposal and impairment, before income taxes is as followsfor the following discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 20042006, 2005 and 2003 (in millions):2004:

 

 

Years Ended
December 31,

 

Subsidiary

 

 

 

2004

 

2003

 

Wolf Hollow

 

 

$

27

 

 

$

(132

)

EDE Este

 

 

17

 

 

(60

)

Granite Ridge

 

 

30

 

 

(208

)

Gener/Carbones del Cesar

 

 

2

 

 

 

Whitefield

 

 

(1

)

 

 

Columbia I

 

 

(5

)

 

(19

)

Bolivia

 

 

(4

)

 

(29

)

Haripur/Meghnaghat

 

 

(2

)

 

(59

)

Ecogen

 

 

 

 

32

 

Mt. Stuart

 

 

 

 

(2

)

Mountainview

 

 

23

 

 

7

 

CILCORP

 

 

4

 

 

(24

)

Mtkvari/Khrami/Telasi

 

 

(1

)

 

(210

)

Songas/Kelvin Power

 

 

 

 

11

 

Drax

 

 

 

 

148

 

Other

 

 

(3

)

 

14

 

Income (loss) on disposal and impairment, before taxes(1)

 

 

$

87

 

 

$

(531

)


 

 

December 31,

 

Subsidiary

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Wolf Hollow

 

$

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

27

 

 

EDE Este

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

 

 

Granite Ridge

 

 

 

 

 

 

30

 

 

Gener/Carbones del Cesar

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

Whitefield

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

Columbia I

 

 

 

 

 

 

(5

)

 

Bolivia

 

 

 

 

 

 

(4

)

 

Haripur/Meghnaughat

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2

)

 

Mountainview

 

 

 

���

 

 

 

23

 

 

CILCORP

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

Mtkvari/Khrami/Telasi

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

Eden Edes

 

(62

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Queens

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

(4

)

 

(Loss) income on disposal and impairment, before taxes

 

$

(57

)

 

$

 

 

 

$

86

 

 

(1)

182




In 2004, asMay 2006, the Company reached an agreement to sell 100% of its interest in Eden, a result of filing the 2003 tax returns, previously recorded estimatesLatin America utility business located in Argentina. Government approval of the tax effecttransaction is still pending in Argentina, but the Company has determined that the sale is probable at this time and is expected to occur in the second quarter of 2007. Therefore, Eden, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AES, has been classified as “held for sale” and reflected as such on the face of the financial statements. The Company recognized a $62 million impairment charge to adjust the carrying value of Eden’s assets to their estimated net realizable value. The impairment expense is included in the 2006 loss from disposal of discontinued businesses line item on the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2006.

In May 2006, the Company reached an agreement to sell AES Indian Queens Power Limited and AES Indian Queens Operations Limited, collectively “IQP”, which is part of the Europe & Africa Generation segment. IQP is an Open Cycle Gas Turbine, located in the U.K. In September 2006, the Company completed the sale of IQP. Proceeds from the sale were adjusted$28 million in cash and the buyer’s assumption of debt of $30 million. The Company recognized a gain on disposal of discontinued businesses of $5 million. The results of operations of IQP and the associated gain on disposal are reflected in the discontinued operations line items on the financial statements.

In August 2004, AES Gener S.A. (“Gener”) reached an agreement to reflect the final tax returns.sell its interest in Carbones del Cesar, a coal mine located in Colombia. The sale resulted in a net gain.

In December 2003, AES classified its investment in Wolf Hollow, a competitive supplyNorth American generation business located in the United States, as held for sale and recorded an impairment charge to reduce the carrying


value of Wolf Hollow’s assets to their estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. In December 2004, AES reached an agreement to sell 100% of its ownership interest in Wolf Hollow and recorded a net gain, including accruals based on certain contingencies related to the disposal.

In December 2003, the Company classified its investment in the holding company that owns 50% of Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad de Este (“EDE Este”), a growth distribution companyLatin America utility business located in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, as an asset held for sale. As a result, the Company recorded an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the assets to their estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. A pre-tax goodwill impairment expense of approximately $68 million was also recorded, as the current fair market value of the business was less than its carrying value. The decline in fair value during 2003 was due, in part, to the continuing devaluation of the Dominican peso and operating losses. In November 2004, AES sold EDE Este and recorded a net gain on the sale.gain.

In December 2003, AES Granite Ridge, a competitive supplyNorth American generation business located in the United States, was classified as held for sale. As a result, AES has recorded an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the assets to the estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. In November 2004, AES disposed of Granite Ridge by transferring ownership of the project to its lenders and recorded a net gain.

In August 2004, AES Gener S.A. (“Gener”), a contract generation subsidiary of the Company, reached an agreement to sell its interest in Carbones del Cesar, a coal mine located in Colombia. The sale resulted in a net gain.

In September 2003, AES reached an agreement to sell 100% of its ownership interest in AES Whitefield, a competitive supplyNorth American generation business located in the United States. At December 31, 2003, this business was classified as held for sale in accordance with SFAS No. 144. The sale of AES Whitefield was completed in March 2004 and AES recorded a net loss.

In December 2003, AES classified its interest in AES Colombia I (“Colombia I”), a competitive supplyLatin America generation business located in Colombia, as held for sale and recorded an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the assets to the estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. In September 2004, the Company sold its ownership interest in Colombia I and recorded a net loss.

During the third quarter of 2003, AES Communications Bolivia (“Bolivia”), a competitive supplyLatin America generation business, was reported as an asset held for sale and an impairment charge was recorded to


reduce the carrying value of the assets to the estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. During June 2004, AES completed the sale of its ownership in Bolivia and recorded a net loss.

In December 2003, AES sold 100% of its ownership interest in both AES Haripur Private Ltd. and AES Meghnaghat Ltd., contract generation businesses in Bangladesh. AES recognized a loss on the sale.

In the first quarter of 2003, the Company sold its investment in AES Mt. Stuart and AES Ecogen, both contract generation businesses in Australia.

In December 2002, AES classified its investment in Mountainview Power Company (“Mountainview”), a competitive supply business located in the United States, as held for sale and recorded a pre-tax impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of Mountainview’s assets to estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. The determination of the fair value was based on available market information obtained through discussions with potential buyers. In January 2003, the Company entered into an agreement to sell Mountainview for $30 million with another $20 million payment contingent on the achievement of project specific milestones. The transaction closed in March 2003 and resulted in a net gain. In March 2004, the contingencies were resolved, the final payment was received and AES recognized a net gain.

In April 2002, AES reached an agreement to sell 100% of its ownership interest in CILCORP, a utility holding company whose largest subsidiary is Central Illinois Light Company (“CILCO”) and Medina


Valley Cogen, a gas-fired cogeneration facility located in CILCO’s service territory. During 2002, goodwill impairment expense was recorded to reduce the carrying amount of the Company’s investment to its estimated fair market value. The fair market value of AES’s investment in CILCORP was estimated using the expected sale price under the related sales agreement. The sale of CILCORP closed in January 2003, and resulted in a loss. In the fourth quarter of 2004, a gain was recorded as a result of the settlement of remaining liabilities. CILCORP was previously reported in the large utilities segment.

In June 2003, AES Mtkvari, AES Khrami and AES Telasi were classified as held for sale and the Company recorded an impairment charge to reduce the carrying value of the assets to their estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. In August 2003 these businesses were sold and a net loss was recorded. AES Mtkvari and AES Khrami were previously reported in the contract generation segment and AES Telasi was previously reported in the growth distribution segment.

In December 2002, AES reached an agreement to sell 100% of its ownership interests in Songas Limited (“Songas”) a competitive supply business located in Tanzania and AES Kelvin Power (Pty.) Ltd. a contract generation business located in South Africa. The sales of AES Kelvin, which closed in March 2003, and the sale of Songas, which closed in April 2003, resulted in a gain on sale.

In the fourth quarter of 2002, Drax Power Limited (“Drax”), a competitive supply business, terminated an agreement with TXU EET as a result of TXU EET’s bankruptcy. The agreement had provided Drax above-market prices for the contracted output (equal to approximately 60% of the total output of the plant). This change in circumstance indicated that the carrying value of Drax’s net assets may not be recoverable, thus the Company recorded a pre-tax impairment charge to reduce the net assets of Drax to the estimated fair value in accordance with SFAS No. 144. In September 2003, as a result of TXU EET’s bankruptcy, the Company’s voting rights in the shares in AES Drax Acquisition Limited, Drax’s parent company, were revoked. AES discontinued consolidating Drax and recorded a pre-tax gain in 2003. AES has no continuing involvement in Drax.

In July 2003, the Company sold substantially all the physical assets and operations of AES Barry, a competitive supply business, for £40 million (approximately $62 million). Additionally, the credit agreement was amended to reflect the sale of the AES Barry assets and AES discontinued consolidating the remaining activities of the business. The sale proceeds were used to discharge part of AES Barry’s debt and to pay certain transaction costs and fees. The results of operations of the plant assets sold, which constitute a component, are included in income (loss) from operations of discontinued operations. Interest expense on the debt, which was not part of the disposal group, was included in income from continuing operations during 2003. The interest on the debt was suspended in 2004, in accordance with an agreement reached with the lender. AES Barry is pursuing a £60 million (approximately $93 million) claim (the amount of which is disputed) against TXU Europe Energy Trading Limited (“TXU EET”), which is currently in bankruptcy administration. AES Barry will receive 20% of amounts recovered in excess of £7 million ($11 million) from the administrator. Under the amended credit agreement, AES Barry may pay any excess to its immediate holding company AES Electric. If the proceeds from TXU EET are not sufficient to repay the bank debt, the banks have recourse to the shares of AES Barry, but have no recourse to the Company for a default by AES Barry. In 2002, the Company recorded a pre-tax impairment charge to reduce the net assets of AES Barry as a result of the TXU EET bankruptcy and an assessment of the recoverability of the assets of AES Barry.


Information for business components included in discontinued operations is as follows (in millions):follows:

 

December 31,

 

 

For the years ended
December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

(in millions)

 

Revenues

 

$

472

 

$

1,234

 

 

$

108

 

 

$

90

 

 

$

545

 

Loss from operations of discontinued businesses (before taxes)

 

$

(2

)

$

(862

)

Income tax benefit

 

36

 

75

 

Gain (loss) from operations of discontinued businesses (before taxes)

 

20

 

 

1

 

 

(88

)

Income tax (expense) benefit

 

(9

)

 

33

 

 

29

 

Income (loss) from operations of discontinued businesses

 

$

34

 

$

(787

)

 

$

11

 

 

$

34

 

 

$

(59

)

(Loss) gain on disposal of discontinued businesses

 

$

(57

)

 

$

 

 

$

91

 

 

There were no assets and liabilities associated with discontinued operations or held for sale at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

20.21.   EARNINGS PER SHARE

Basic and diluted earnings per share are based on the weighted average number of shares of common stock and potential common stock outstanding during the period, after giving effect to stock splits. Potential common stock, for purposes of determining diluted earnings per share, includes the effects of dilutive stock options, warrants, deferred compensation arrangements, and convertible securities. The effect of such potential common stock is computed using the treasury stock method or the if-converted method, as applicable.

The following table presents a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted earnings per share computations for income from continuing operations. In the table below, income represents the numerator (in millions) and shares represent the denominator (in millions):

 

 

December 31, 2005

December 31, 2004

December 31, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

$ perRestated

 

Restated

 

 

 

$ perDecember 31, 2006

 

December 31, 2005

 

$ perDecember 31, 2004

 

 

 

Income

 

Shares

 

$ per
Share

 

Income

 

Shares

 

$ per
Share

 

Income

 

Shares

 

$ per
Share

 

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

SHARE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

632

 

 

 

653.6

 

 

$

0.96

 

 

$

264

 

 

 

640.6

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

294

 

 

 

594.7

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

 

 

$

286

 

 

 

661

 

 

$

0.44

 

 

$

574

 

 

 

654

 

 

$

0.89

 

 

$

268

 

 

 

641

 

 

 

$

0.42

 

 

EFFECT OF DILUTIVE SECURITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EFFECT OF DILUTIVE SECURITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock options and warrants

 

 

 

 

 

9.7

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

6.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

(0.02

)

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

(0.01

)

 

Restricted stock units

 

 

 

 

 

1.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restrictive stock units

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock units allocated to deferred compensation plans

 

 

 

 

 

0.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

 

 

$

632

 

 

 

664.6

 

 

$

0.95

 

 

$

264

 

 

 

648.1

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

294

 

 

 

598.3

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

DILUTIVE EARNINGS PER SHARE

 

 

$

286

 

 

 

672

 

 

$

0.43

 

 

$

574

 

 

 

665

 

 

$

0.87

 

 

$

268

 

 

 

648

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

There were approximately 8,397,912, 26,614,974 and 28,035,227 options outstanding in 2005, 2004 and 2003 that were omitted from theThe calculation of diluted earnings per share calculationexcluded 5,164,492, 8,397,912 and 26,614,974 options outstanding at December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, because they were anti-dilutive.the exercise price of those options exceeded the average market price during the related period. In 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, all convertible debentures were omitted from the earnings per share calculation because they were anti-dilutive.

21.22.   SEGMENT AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Beginning with this Annual Report on Form 10-K, AES realigned its reportable segments. We previously reported its financial results in four businessunder three segments: Regulated Utilities, Contract Generation and Competitive Supply. The Company currently reports seven segments as of December 31, 2006, which include:

·       Latin America Generation;

·       Latin America Utilities;


·       North America Generation;

·       North America Utilities;

·       Europe & Africa Generation;

·       Europe & Africa Utilities;

·       Asia Generation

The additional segment reporting better reflects how AES manages the electricity industry: large utilities, growth distribution, contract generation and competitive supply. After careful review and consideration of the Company’s operating segments during the second quarter, it was determined that the businesses within the large utilities and growth distribution segments were similarcompany internally in terms of exposure to government regulationdecision making and assessing performance. The Company manages its business primarily on a geographic basis in two distinct lines of their tariffsbusiness—the generation of electricity and the typedistribution of customer base served. The Company further determined that the similarities now outweigh the characteristics of size, location and growth potential that previously differentiated the two regulated distribution segments. Beginning in the second quarter of 2005, the large utilities and growth distribution segments were merged into one segment entitled “regulated utilities.”  The Company’s 2004 and 2003 information has been restated to conform to the 2005 segment presentation.

152




Although the nature of the product is the same in all three segments, the segmentselectricity. These businesses are differentiateddistinguished by the nature of the customers, operational differences, cost structure, regulatory environment and risk exposure. In addition, given the geographic dispersion of our operating units, the inclusion of additional segments by region provides further transparency to our shareholders and other external constituents.

·The regulated utilities segment primarily consistsCompany uses both revenue and gross margin as key measures to evaluate the performance of 14 distribution companies in seven countries that maintain a monopoly franchise within a defined service area.

·       The contract generation segment consists of facilities that have contractually limited their exposureits segments. Segment revenue includes inter-segment sales related to electricity price volatility by entering into long-term (five years or longer) power sales agreements for 75% or more of their output capacity. Exposure to fuel supply risks is also limited through long-term fuel supply contracts or through tolling arrangements. These contractual agreements generally reduce exposure to fuel commodity and electricity price volatility, and thereby increase the predictability of their cash flows and earnings.

·       The competitive supply segment consists primarily of power plants selling electricity to wholesale customers through competitive markets, and as a result, the cash flows and earnings of such businesses are more sensitive to fluctuations in the market pricetransfer of electricity natural gas, coal, oilfrom generation plants to utilities within Latin America. No inter-segment revenue relationships exist in other segments. Gross margin is defined as total revenue less operating expenses including depreciation and amortization and local fixed operating and other fuels.overhead costs. Corporate allocations include certain management fees and self insurance activity which is reflected within segment gross margin. All intra-segment activity has been eliminated with respect to revenue and gross margin within the segment; inter-segment activity has been eliminated within the total consolidated results.

Corporate and other expenses include general and administrative expenses related to corporate staff functions and/or initiatives—primarily executive management, finance, legal, human resources, information systems and certain development costs which are not allocable to our business segments. In addition, this line item includes net operating results from our Alternative Energy businesses which are immaterial for the purposes of separate segment disclosure and,the effects of eliminating transactions, such as management fee arrangements and self-insurance charges, between the operating segments and corporate.

As required by SFAS No. 131, Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information, all prior year information has been recast to reflect the realignment of segments. All income statement and balance sheet information for businesses that were discontinued is segregated and is shown in the line “Income (loss) from operations of discontinued businesses”“Discontinued Businesses” in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.segment tables.

The accounting policiestables below present the breakdown of the three business segments are the samesegment balance sheet and income statement data as those described in Note 1. The Company uses gross margin as one of the measures to evaluate the performance of its business segments. Depreciation and amortization at the business segments are included in the calculation of gross margin. Corporate depreciation and amortization is reported within “General and administrative expenses” in the consolidated statements of operations. Equity in earnings is used to evaluate the performance of businesses that are significantly influenced by the Company. Sales between the segments are accounted for at fair value as if the sales were to third parties. All intersegment activity has been eliminated with respect to revenue and gross margin.


Information about the Company’s operations and assets by segment is as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

Equity in

 

 

 

in and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

Gross

 

Earnings

 

Total

 

Advances to

 

Property

 

 

 

Revenues(1)

 

Amortization

 

Margin(2)

 

(Loss)(3)

 

Assets

 

Affiliates

 

Additions

 

Year Ended December 31, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contract Generation

 

 

$

4,137

 

 

 

$

357

 

 

 

$

1,603

 

 

 

$

75

 

 

$

14,289

 

 

$

654

 

 

 

$

577

 

 

Competitive Supply

 

 

1,212

 

 

 

72

 

 

 

338

 

 

 

1

 

 

2,180

 

 

6

 

 

 

52

 

 

Regulated Utilities

 

 

5,737

 

 

 

453

 

 

 

1,237

 

 

 

 

 

12,284

 

 

1

 

 

 

470

 

 

Corporate

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

679

 

 

9

 

 

 

44

 

 

Total

 

 

$

11,086

 

 

 

$

889

 

 

 

$

3,178

 

 

 

$

76

 

 

$

29,432

 

 

$

670

 

 

 

$

1,143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

Equity in

 

 

 

in and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

Gross

 

Earnings

 

Total

 

Advances to

 

Property

 

 

 

Revenues(1)

 

Amortization

 

Margin(2)

 

(Loss)(3)

 

Assets

 

Affiliates

 

Additions

 

Year Ended December 31, 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contract Generation

 

 

$

3,546

 

 

 

$

329

 

 

 

$

1,428

 

 

 

$

71

 

 

$

13,970

 

 

$

621

 

 

 

$

361

 

 

Competitive Supply

 

 

1,020

 

 

 

66

 

 

 

238

 

 

 

(2

)

 

2,156

 

 

6

 

 

 

53

 

 

Regulated Utilities

 

 

4,897

 

 

 

393

 

 

 

1,116

 

 

 

1

 

 

11,610

 

 

1

 

 

 

445

 

 

Discontinued Businesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

Corporate

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,187

 

 

27

 

 

 

24

 

 

Total

 

 

$

9,463

 

 

 

$

795

 

 

 

$

2,782

 

 

 

$

70

 

 

$

28,923

 

 

$

655

 

 

 

$

892

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

Equity in

 

 

 

in and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

Gross

 

Earnings

 

Total

 

Advances to

 

Property

 

 

 

Revenues(1)

 

Amortization

 

Margin(2)

 

(Loss)(3)

 

Assets

 

Affiliates

 

Additions

 

Year Ended December 31, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contract Generation

 

 

$

3,108

 

 

 

$

292

 

 

 

$

1,262

 

 

 

$

94

 

 

$

13,267

 

 

$

619

 

 

 

$

583

 

 

Competitive Supply

 

 

880

 

 

 

53

 

 

 

221

 

 

 

 

 

2,147

 

 

7

 

 

 

126

 

 

Regulated Utilities

 

 

4,425

 

 

 

366

 

 

 

976

 

 

 

 

 

11,597

 

 

 

 

 

387

 

 

Discontinued Businesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

863

 

 

 

 

 

111

 

 

Corporate

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,263

 

 

22

 

 

 

21

 

 

Total

 

 

$

8,413

 

 

 

$

715

 

 

 

$

2,459

 

 

 

$

94

 

 

$

29,137

 

 

$

648

 

 

 

$

1,228

 

 


(1)          Intersegment revenues for the years ended December 31, 2005,2006 through 2004 and 2003 were $792 million, $431 million and $318 million, respectively. These amounts have been eliminated in consolidation and are excluded from amounts reported.(in millions).

 

 

Total Revenue

 

Intersegment

 

External Revenue

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Revenue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latin AmericaGeneration

 

$

2,616

 

$

2,145

 

$

1,584

 

$

(789

)

$

(578

)

$

(336

)

$

1,827

 

$

1,567

 

$

1,248

 

Latin AmericaUtilities

 

5,246

 

4,796

 

3,824

 

 

 

 

5,246

 

4,796

 

3,824

 

North AmericaGeneration

 

1,900

 

1,809

 

1,704

 

 

 

 

1,900

 

1,809

 

1,704

 

North AmericaUtilities

 

1,032

 

951

 

885

 

 

 

 

1,032

 

951

 

885

 

Europe & AfricaGeneration

 

852

 

735

 

697

 

 

 

 

852

 

735

 

697

 

Europe & AfricaUtilities

 

571

 

505

 

463

 

 

 

 

571

 

505

 

463

 

AsiaGeneration

 

840

 

642

 

570

 

 

 

 

840

 

642

 

570

 

Corp/Other & eliminations

 

(758

)

(562

)

(335

)

789

 

578

 

336

 

31

 

16

 

1

 

Total Revenue

 

$

12,299

 

$

11,021

 

$

9,392

 

$

 

$

 

$

 

$

12,299

 

$

11,021

 

$

9,392

 

(2)          For consolidated subsidiaries, the measure of profit or loss used for


 

 

Total Gross Margin

 

Intersegment

 

External Gross Margin

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Gross Margin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latin AmericaGeneration

 

$

1,054

 

$

857

 

$

616

 

$

(773

)

$

(565

)

$

(325

)

$

281

 

$

292

 

$

291

 

Latin AmericaUtilities

 

1,071

 

834

 

754

 

808

 

585

 

343

 

1,879

 

1,419

 

1,097

 

North AmericaGeneration

 

556

 

590

 

590

 

13

 

14

 

13

 

569

 

604

 

603

 

North AmericaUtilities

 

277

 

301

 

303

 

2

 

1

 

1

 

279

 

302

 

304

 

Europe & AfricaGeneration

 

249

 

186

 

182

 

6

 

5

 

4

 

255

 

191

 

186

 

Europe & AfricaUtilities

 

112

 

112

 

60

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

113

 

113

 

61

 

AsiaGeneration

 

255

 

284

 

252

 

5

 

5

 

3

 

260

 

289

 

255

 

Corp/Other & eliminations

 

57

 

35

 

34

 

(62

)

(46

)

(40

)

(5

)

(11

)

(6

)

Total Gross Margin

 

$

3,631

 

$

3,199

 

$

2,791

 

$

 

$

 

$

 

$

3,631

 

$

3,199

 

$

2,791

 

 

 

Total Assets

 

Depreciation and 
Amortization

 

Capital 
Expenditures

 

 

 

December 31,

 

December 31,

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Latin AmericaGeneration

 

$

6,904

 

$

6,285

 

$

5,909

 

$

154

 

$

136

 

$

125

 

$

127

 

$

74

 

$

34

 

Latin AmericaUtilities

 

9,604

 

8,899

 

8,593

 

276

 

241

 

196

 

410

 

313

 

238

 

North AmericaGeneration

 

5,287

 

5,295

 

5,391

 

169

 

164

 

157

 

127

 

62

 

39

 

North AmericaUtilities.

 

2,807

 

2,572

 

2,482

 

136

 

136

 

125

 

196

 

112

 

154

 

Europe & AfricaGeneration

 

2,292

 

1,655

 

1,773

 

61

 

60

 

57

 

308

 

39

 

66

 

Europe & AfricaUtilities

 

807

 

747

 

862

 

49

 

47

 

46

 

48

 

44

 

70

 

AsiaGeneration

 

2,184

 

2,236

 

2,403

 

62

 

62

 

54

 

9

 

11

 

61

 

Discontinuted businesses

 

136

 

300

 

326

 

2

 

6

 

6

 

 

11

 

17

 

Corp/Other & eliminations

 

1,142

 

971

 

649

 

24

 

12

 

11

 

287

 

161

 

33

 

Total

 

$

31,163

 

$

28,960

 

$

28,388

 

$

933

 

$

864

 

$

777

 

$

1,512

 

$

827

 

$

712

 

 

 

Investment in and 
Advances to Affiliates

 

Equity in Earnings (Loss)

 

 

 

December 31,

 

December 31,

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

Latin AmericaGeneration

 

$

59

 

$

137

 

$

138

 

 

$

16

 

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

Latin AmericaUtilities

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

North AmericaGeneration

 

 

19

 

27

 

 

3

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

1

 

 

North AmericaUtilities

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Europe & AfricaGeneration

 

135

 

143

 

223

 

 

7

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

6

 

 

Europe & AfricaUtilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AsiaGeneration

 

376

 

354

 

350

 

 

47

 

 

 

46

 

 

 

49

 

 

Discontinuted businesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corp/Other & eliminations

 

24

 

10

 

4

 

 

(1

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

$

596

 

$

665

 

$

743

 

 

$

72

 

 

 

$

70

 

 

 

$

63

 

 


The table below presents information about the Company’s reportable segments is gross margin. Gross margin equals revenues less costconsolidated operations and long-lived assets, by country, for years ended December 31, 2004 through 2006 and as of sales on the consolidated statement of operations for each year presented.

(3)          For equity method investments, the measure of profit or loss used for the Company’s reportable segments is equity in earnings.


December 31, 2005 and 2006, respectively. Revenues are recorded in the country in which they are earned and assets are recorded in the country in which they are located. Information about the Company’s consolidated operations and long-lived assets by country are as follows (in millions):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property, Plant and

 

 

Revenues

 

Property, Plant & 
Equipment, net

 

 

Revenues

 

Equipment, net

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

United States

 

$

2,335

 

$

2,213

 

$

2,158

 

$

5,613

 

$

5,502

 

 

$

2,544

 

$

2,335

 

$

2,213

 

$

5,890

 

$

5,609

 

Non-U.S:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brazil

 

3,823

 

2,925

 

2,528

 

3,990

 

3,544

 

 

4,161

 

3,823

 

2,925

 

4,567

 

4,130

 

Argentina

 

517

 

382

 

228

 

544

 

520

 

 

542

 

438

 

320

 

412

 

418

 

Chile

 

542

 

436

 

411

 

796

 

837

 

 

595

 

542

 

436

 

812

 

796

 

Venezuela

 

613

 

619

 

608

 

1,847

 

1,873

 

 

652

 

635

 

619

 

1,859

 

1,861

 

Dominican Republic

 

231

 

168

 

141

 

476

 

483

 

 

357

 

231

 

168

 

653

 

476

 

El Salvador

 

377

 

356

 

345

 

233

 

225

 

 

437

 

377

 

356

 

241

 

225

 

Pakistan

 

219

 

210

 

186

 

288

 

288

 

 

373

 

219

 

210

 

272

 

288

 

United Kingdom

 

219

 

225

 

186

 

332

 

378

 

 

222

 

208

 

215

 

303

 

282

 

Cameroon

 

293

 

273

 

209

 

354

 

407

 

 

302

 

288

 

272

 

407

 

354

 

Mexico

 

226

 

186

 

169

 

195

 

200

 

 

185

 

226

 

186

 

188

 

195

 

Puerto Rico

 

213

 

188

 

178

 

643

 

658

 

 

234

 

213

 

188

 

626

 

643

 

Hungary

 

230

 

192

 

218

 

214

 

253

 

 

304

 

230

 

192

 

225

 

209

 

Ukraine

 

217

 

190

 

164

 

97

 

89

 

 

269

 

217

 

190

 

106

 

97

 

Qatar

 

169

 

165

 

129

 

578

 

603

 

Colombia

 

184

 

182

 

132

 

398

 

407

 

Panama

 

144

 

134

 

117

 

450

 

454

 

Oman

 

114

 

113

 

110

 

337

 

346

 

Kazakhstan

 

215

 

158

 

137

 

175

 

150

 

Other Non-U.S.

 

1,031

 

900

 

684

 

3,032

 

2,920

 

 

296

 

287

 

277

 

575

 

490

 

Total Non-U.S

 

8,751

 

7,250

 

6,255

 

13,041

 

12,675

 

Total Non-U.S.

 

$

9,755

 

$

8,686

 

$

7,179

 

$

13,184

 

$

12,424

 

Total

 

$

11,086

 

$

9,463

 

$

8,413

 

$

18,654

 

$

18,177

 

 

$

12,299

 

$

11,021

 

$

9,392

 

$

19,074

 

$

18,033

 

 

22.23.   RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RISKS

Brazil

In Brazil, AES has subsidiaries that operateDuring 2006, approximately 79% of our revenue was generated outside the United States and a significant portion of our international operations is conducted in contract generation and regulated utilities segmentsdeveloping countries. Part of the electricity business. AES Eletropauloour growth strategy is the Company’s regulated utilityto expand our business in Sao Paulo, Brazil while Sul isdeveloping countries because the growth rates and the opportunity to implement operating improvements and achieve higher operating margins may be greater than those typically achievable in more developed countries. International operations, particularly the operation, financing and development of projects in developing countries, entail significant risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation:

·       economic, social and political instability in any particular country or region;

·       adverse changes in currency exchange rates;

·       government restrictions on converting currencies or repatriating funds;

·       unexpected changes in foreign laws and regulations or in trade, monetary or fiscal policies;

·       high inflation and monetary fluctuations;


·       restrictions on imports of coal, oil, gas or other raw materials required by our generation businesses to operate;

·       threatened or consummated expropriation or nationalization of our assets by foreign governments;

·       difficulties in hiring, training and retaining qualified personnel, particularly finance and accounting personnel with U.S. GAAP expertise;

·       unwillingness of governments, government agencies or similar organizations to honor their contracts;

·       inability to obtain access to fair and equitable political, regulatory, administrative and legal systems;

·       adverse changes in government tax policy;

·       difficulties in enforcing our contractual rights or enforcing judgments or obtaining a regulated utility businessjust result in local jurisdictions; and

·       potentially adverse tax consequences of operating in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Contract generation facilities include Uruguaiana in Rio Grande do Sul and Tietê in the State of Sao Paulo.multiple jurisdictions.

The Brazilian economy continued to show positive results in 2005, especially with respect to inflation and foreign trade balances. However, the economy did not reach the growth levels of other emerging markets such as China and India. The trade balance surplus reached its highest level in history while increased liquidity in the international markets has been positive to the Brazilian economy. In 2006, Brazil is expected to be classified as investment grade by the risk agencies such as Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s.

As a resultAny of these positive economic indicators, the exchange rate improved from 2.66 Brazilian reals per U.S. dollar asfactors, by itself or in combination with others, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of December 31, 2004 to 2.33 Brazilian reals per U.S. dollar as of December 31, 2005. Domestic interest rates started to gradually decreaseoperations and financial condition. In addition, our Latin American operations experience volatility in September 2005revenues and earnings which have caused and are expected to continue to decrease through 2006.cause significant volatility in our results of operations and cash flows. The Brazilian Central Bank took advantagevolatility is caused by regulatory and economic difficulties, political instability and currency devaluations being experienced in many of these countries. This volatility reduces the predictability and enhances the uncertainty associated with cash flows from these businesses.

Our inability to predict, influence or respond appropriately to changes in law or regulatory schemes, including any inability to obtain expected or contracted increases in electricity tariff rates and bought U.S. dollarsor tariff adjustments for increased expenses, could adversely impact our results of operations or our ability to meet publicly announced projections or analyst’s expectations. Furthermore, changes in order to increase the Brazilian reserves and decrease the portion of the Central Bank’s debt linked to the U.S. dollar.

The crisislaws or regulations or changes in the political environmentapplication or interpretation of regulatory provisions in 2005 was triggered by corruption allegations involving the president’s Lula party. Consequently, the majority of the activities in Congress concentrated onjurisdictions where we operate, particularly our Utilities where electricity tariffs are subject to regulatory review or approval, could adversely affect our business, including, but not limited to:


investigating these allegations. The positive results·       changes in the Brazilian economy minimized the possible negative effectsdetermination, definition or classification of this political crisis.costs to be included as reimbursable or pass-through costs;

Despite the growth of Brazilian economy in 2005, there is some uncertainty regarding the country’s ability to sustain this growth over the next few years, especially·       changes in the power sector.definition or determination of controllable or non-controllable costs;

Since the beginning of a broad institutional reform (end of 2003), relevant·       changes have been implemented in the Brazilian power sector regulatory environment, which included the following: the emergencedefinition of a dual commercialization environment with a regulated environment for distribution companies, and a free contractual environment for traders and free consumers; the requirement, as of January 2005, for every distribution company to serve 100% of its load, subject to certain penalties; amendments to concession agreements, which modified the pass-through methodology in annual tariff adjustments and periodic tariff resets and excluded taxes on revenues from the regulated tariffs; and the public auction of energy carried out by the new Electric Energy Commercialization Chamber.

The Brazilian power sector continues to be the subject of several measures relating to the development of the New Power Sector Model,events which may have a significant impact on AES’s businesses in Brazil. Therefore, there is still some uncertainty regarding the effect of these changes on the power sectoror may not qualify as well as on AES’s business interests in Brazil.

Venezuela

In January 2003, the Venezuelan government and the Central Bank of Venezuela (“Central Bank”) agreed to suspend the trading of foreign currencies and to establish new standards for the exchange of foreign currency. Subsequently, in February 2003, the Venezuelan government and the Central Bank entered into a Currency Exchange Agreement (“Exchange Agreement”). The terms of the Exchange Agreement provided for the establishment of an applicable exchange rate, the centralization of the purchase and sale of currencies within the country by the Central Bank, and the incorporation of the Foreign Currency Management Commission (“CADIVI”). CADIVI governs the provisions of the exchange agreement, defines the requirements for the administration of foreign currencies for imports and exports, and authorizes purchases of currencies in the country. From 2003 through 2005, CADIVI authorized exchanges for the majority of EDC’s debt service and U.S. dollar operational obligations.

In March 2005, the Venezuelan government and the Central Bank amended the exchange rates that were established in February 2004 to 2,147 bolivars per U.S. dollar for purchases and 2,150 bolivars per U.S. dollar for sales. The previous exchange rates established in February 2004 were 1,916 bolivars per U.S. dollar for purchases and 1,920 bolivars per U.S. dollar for sales. These actions, combined with potential regulatory or tariff changes, may impact the ability of EDC to distribute cash to the Company in the future. As of December 31, 2004 and 2005, EDC was in compliance with all of its debt covenants.

These circumstances create significant uncertainty surrounding the performance, cash flow and profitability of EDC. However, AES is not required to support any potential cash flow shortfalls or debt service obligations of EDC. AES’s total investment in EDC at December 31, 2005 and 2004 was approximately $1.5 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively, which is net of foreign currency translation losses.

Argentina

AES has several subsidiaries in Argentina operating in the contract generation, competitive supply and regulated utilities segments of the electricity business. Eden/Edes and Edelap are regulated utilities businesses that operate in the province of Buenos Aires. Generating facilities include Alicura, Parana, CTSN, Rio Juramento, TermoAndes and several other smaller hydro facilities. These businesses are experiencing reduced cash flows and certain subsidiaries are in default with respect to all or a portion of their outstanding indebtedness.


In 2002, Argentina experienced a political, social and economic crisis that has resulted in significant changes in economic policies and regulations, as well as specificequilibrium;

·       changes in the energy sector. As a result, many new economic measures were adopted bytiming of tariff increases; or

·       other changes in the Argentine government, including abandonmentregulatory determinations under the relevant concessions.

Any of the country’s fixed dollar-to-peso exchange rate, converting U.S. dollar-denominated loans into pesos and placing restrictions onabove events may result in lower margins for the convertibility of the Argentine peso. The government also adopted new regulations in the energy sector that repealed U.S. dollar-denominated pricing under existing distribution concessions in Argentina by fixing all prices to consumers in pesos. As a result, the Company changed the functional currency for itsaffected businesses, in Argentina to the peso effective January 1, 2002. From 2003 through 2005 the political and social situation in Argentina showed signs of stabilization, the Argentine peso appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar and the economy and electricity demand started to recover. In May 2003, a new government was established that introduced changes to the regulations governing the electricity industry. During 2005, the new government was confirmed by the results of the national elections for Congress and new changes to the regulations governing the electricity industry were introduced. These circumstances create significant uncertainty surrounding the performance, cash flow and potential for profitability of the electricity industry in Argentina, including the Argentine subsidiaries of AES.

The effects of the crisis are not expected to have a significant negative impact on AES’s parent cash flow, due primarily to the non-recourse financing structure in place at most of AES’s Argentine businesses. The effects of the current circumstances on future earnings are much more uncertain and difficult to predict. As of December 31, 2005, AES’s total investment in the competitive supply business in Argentina was approximately $62 million and the total investment in the regulated utilities business was approximately $56 million. These investment amounts are net of foreign currency translation losses.

Dominican Republic

The electricity sector in the Dominican Republic has evolved from a state owned system, to a system regulated from 1997 through 1999 by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, but without an overall electricity sector plan, and finally, with the passage of the General Electricity Law No. 125-01 (“Law 125-01”), into a system with more concise rules, governed by the Superintendancy of Electricity (“SIE”). However, some of the new resolutions adopted by SIE are in conflict with the regulations created by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce prior to enactment of Law 125-01. The enactment of Law 125-01 should lead to the promotion and development of the national electric infrastructure, and to support the population’s economic growth expectations. The law provides reinforcement and support for most of the rights acquired both prior to and during the reform and capitalization of the formerly state owned energy consortium.

During 2003 and beginning of 2004, the Dominican Republic was shaken by a severe economic, financial and political crisis, caused mainly by the status of the public finances and the bankruptcy of the three main commercial banks. Although the electricity sector has been vulnerable for years, it was this economic downturn and an increase in fuel prices that essentially caused a financial crisis in the Dominican Republic electricity sector. Specifically, the inability to pass through higher fuel prices and the costs of devaluation led to a gap between collections at the distribution companies and the amounts required to pay generators for electricity generated. Some of the regulatory problems included (i) the failure to provide for full pass through of the costs of electricity supply to consumers, and (ii) the failure of the regulator to follow through on subsidy commitments, which has put the distribution companies in the position of effectively financing portions of the subsidy programs.

In January 2005, the Dominican Republic government and the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) entered into a letter of intent, which describes the policies the Dominican Republic intends to implement in the context of its request for financial support from the IMF. The letter of intent provided, among other things, for a series of steps to be taken by the Dominican Republic government to reform the electricity


sector and improve collection rates of the distribution companies from their customers. At the beginning of 2005, the IMF approved a Stand-By Arrangement with the Dominican Republic. Credits from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank were also granted to the Dominican Republic in 2005.

In March 2005, the generators and distributors entered into a Sector Agreement with the Ministry of Finance, Comisión Nacional de Energía (“CNE”), and Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (“CDEEE”), whereby the Dominican Republic government committed to stay current with its electricity bills in 2005 and cover the potential deficit of the distribution companies for this period, and the generators agreed to be available to be dispatched. By means of that agreement, the Dominican Republic government provided the distribution companies the amounts needed to remain current on the monthly power payments to generators for most of 2005, but in late 2005, distribution companies began to fall behind on these payments to generators. The electricity sector in the Dominican Republic is currently highly dependent on assistance provided by international lending agencies and multilateral institutions. Consequently, the financial condition ofcan adversely affect our businesses in the Dominican Republic could be affected by the Dominican Republic government’s ability to comply with these agreements.business.

RISKS RELATED TO FOREIGN CURRENCIES—AES operates businesses in many foreign environments and such investmentsoperations in foreign countries may be impacted by significant fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. The Company’s financial position and results of operations have been significantly affected by fluctuations in the value of the Brazilian real, the Argentine peso, the Brazilian real, the Dominican Republic peso, the Pakistani rupee, the Venezuelan bolivar, the Euro, and the Chilean peso relative to the U.S. dollar.


RISKS RELATED TO POWER SALES CONTRACTS—Several of the Company’s power plants rely on power sales contracts with one or a limited number of entities for the majority of, and in some case all of, the relevant plant’s output over the term of the power sales contract. The remaining term of the power sales contracts related to the Company’s power plants range from 1 to 26 years. No single customer accounted for 10% or more of total revenues in 2006, 2005, 2004 or 2003. 2004.

The cash flows and results of operations of such plants are dependent on the credit quality of the purchasers and the continued ability of their customers and suppliers to meet their obligations under the relevant power sales contract. If a substantial portion of the Company’s long-term power sales contracts were modified or terminated, the Company would be adversely affected to the extent that it was unable to find other customers at the same level of contract profitability. The loss of one or more significant power sales contracts or the failure by any of the parties to a power sales contract to fulfill its obligations thereunder could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

23.24.   OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

IPL, a subsidiary of the Company, formed IPL Funding Corporation (“IPL Funding”) in 1996 to purchase, on a revolving basis, up to $50 million of the retail accounts receivable and related collections of IPL. IPL Funding is not consolidated by IPL or IPALCO since it meets requirements set forth in SFAS No. 140, “AccountingAccounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities”Liabilities, to be considered a qualified special-purpose entity. IPL Funding has entered into a purchase facility with unrelated parties (“the Purchasers”) pursuant to which the Purchasers agree to purchase from IPL Funding, on a revolving basis, up to $50 million of the receivables purchased from IPL. During 2005,2006, this agreement was extended through May 30, 2006.29, 2007. As of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, the aggregate amount of receivables IPL has sold to IPL Funding and IPL Funding has sold to the Purchasers pursuant to this facility was $50 million. Accounts receivable on the Company’s balance sheets are stated net of the $50 million sold.

The net cash flows between IPL and IPL Funding totaled approximately $2 million, $1 million and $1 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. IPL retains


servicing responsibilities throughfor its role as a collection agent foron the amounts due on the sold receivables.  However, the Purchasers assume the risk of collection on the purchased receivables. receivables without recourse to IPL in the event of a loss.  While no direct recourse to IPL exists, it risks loss in the event collections are not sufficient to allow for full recovery of its retained interests.  No servicing asset or liability is recorded since the servicing fee paid to IPL approximates a market rate.

The carrying values of the retained interest is determined by allocating the carrying value of the receivables between the assets sold and the interests retained based on relative fair value.  The key assumptions in estimating fair value are credit losses, the selection of discount rates, and expected receivables turnover rate.  As a result of short accounts receivable turnover period and historically low credit losses, the impact of these assumptions have not been significant to the fair value.  The hypothetical effect on the fair value of the retained interests assuming both a 10% and a 20% unfavorable variation in credit losses or discount rates is not material due to the short turnover of receivables and historically low credit loss history.

The losses recognized on the sales of receivables were $3 million, $2 million and $1 million for 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.  These losses are included in other operating expense on the consolidated statements of income.  The amount of the losses recognized depends on the previous carrying amount of the financial assets involved in the transfer, allocated between the assets sold and the interests that continue to be held by the transferor based on their relative fair value at the date of transfer, and the proceeds received.

There are no proceeds from new securitizations for each of 2006, 2005 and 2004.  Servicing fees of $0.6 million were paid for each of 2006, 2005 and 2004.


IPL and IPL Funding provide certain indemnities to the Purchasers, including indemnification in the event that there is a breach of representations and warranties made with respect to the purchased receivables. IPL Funding and IPL each have agreed to indemnify the Purchasers on an after-tax basis for any and all damages, losses, claims, liabilities, penalties, taxes, costs and expenses at any time imposed on or incurred by the indemnified parties arising out of or otherwise relating to the purchase agreement,facility, subject to certain limitations as defined in purchase agreement. The transfers of such accounts receivable from IPL to IPL Funding are recorded as sales; however, no gain or loss is recorded on the sale.Purchase Facility.

Under the receivables purchase facility,Purchase Facility, if IPL fails to maintain certain financial covenants regarding interest coverage and debt to capital, it would constitute a “termination event.” As of December 31, 2005,2006, IPL was in compliance with such covenants.

As a result of IPL’s current credit rating, the facility agent has the ability to to:

(i)            replace IPL as the collection agent; and

(ii)        declare a “lock-box” event.

Under a lock-box event or a termination event, the facility agent has the ability to require all proceeds of purchased receivables of IPL to be directed to lock-box accounts within 45 days of notifying IPL. A termination event would also also:

(i)            give the facility agent the option to take control of the lock-box account,account; and

(ii)        give the Purchasers the option to discontinue the purchase of new receivables and cause all proceeds of the purchased receivables to be used to reduce the Purchaser’s investment and to pay other amounts owed to the Purchasers and the facility agent.

This would have the effect of reducing the operating capital available to IPL by the aggregate amount of such purchased receivables (currently $50 million).

159Our Panamanian businesses are partially owned by the Government of Panama (the “Government”). The Government, in turn, partially owns the distribution companies within Panama. For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, our Panamanian businesses recognized electricity sales to the Government totaling $141 million, $134 million and $117 million, respectively. For the same period, our Panamanian businesses purchased electricity from the Government totaling $23 million, $16 million and $38 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, our Panamanian businesses owed the Government $5 million and $4 million, respectively, payable on normal trade terms. For the same period, the Government owed our Panamanian businesses $35 million and $34 million, respectively, payable on normal trade terms.





24.25.   SELECTED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)

Quarterly Financial Data

The following table summarizestables summarize the unaudited quarterly statements of operations for the Company for 20052006 and 2004 (in millions, except per share amounts).2005. See footnoteNote 1 for a discussion of the nature of the errors in previously issued consolidated financial statements.

 

Quarter ended 2006

 

 

Mar 31

 

June 30

 

Sept 30

 

Dec 31

 

 

Quarter ended 2005

 

 

Reported(2)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Reported

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Reported

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Reported

 

 

March 31

 

June 30

 

September 30

 

December 31

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

Revenues

 

 

$

2,663

 

 

$

2,668

 

 

$

2,782

 

 

 

$

2,973

 

 

 

 

$

2,982

 

 

 

$

2,973

 

 

 

$

3,038

 

 

 

$

3,044

 

 

 

$

3,150

 

 

 

$

3,135

 

 

 

$

3,147

 

 

Gross Margin

 

 

$

824

 

 

$

526

 

 

$

899

 

 

 

$

929

 

 

Gross Margin .

 

 

951

 

 

 

956

 

 

 

919

 

 

 

934

 

 

 

974

 

 

 

887

 

 

 

854

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

124

 

 

$

85

 

 

$

244

 

 

 

$

179

 

 

 

 

355

 

 

 

352

 

 

 

211

 

 

 

223

 

 

 

(353

)

 

 

(335

)

 

 

46

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(4

)

 

 

(4

)

 

 

(63

)

 

 

(62

)

 

 

13

 

 

 

15

 

 

 

5

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2

)

 

Extraordinary items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

 

 

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

 

$

124

 

 

$

85

 

 

$

244

 

 

 

$

177

 

 

 

 

$

351

 

 

 

$

348

 

 

 

$

169

 

 

 

$

182

 

 

 

$

(340

)

 

 

$

(320

)

 

 

$

51

 

 

Basic income per share(1):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic income per share:(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

0.19

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

$

0.38

 

 

 

$

0.27

 

 

 

 

$

0.54

 

 

 

$

0.54

 

 

 

$

0.32

 

 

 

$

0.34

 

 

 

$

(0.54

)

 

 

$

(0.51

)

 

 

$

0.07

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

(0.01

)

 

 

$

(0.01

)

 

 

$

(0.09

)

 

 

$

(0.09

)

 

 

$

0.02

 

 

 

$

0.02

 

 

 

$

0.01

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic income per share

 

 

$

0.19

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

$

0.38

 

 

 

$

0.27

 

 

Diluted income per share(1):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraordinary items

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

Basic income per share .

 

 

$

0.53

 

 

 

$

0.53

 

 

 

$

0.26

 

 

 

$

0.28

 

 

 

$

(0.52

)

 

 

$

(0.49

)

 

 

$

0.08

 

 

Diluted income per share:(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

0.19

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

$

0.37

 

 

 

$

0.27

 

 

 

 

$

0.54

 

 

 

$

0.53

 

 

 

$

0.31

 

 

 

$

0.33

 

 

 

$

(0.54

)

 

 

$

(0.51

)

 

 

$

0.07

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

(0.01

)

 

 

$

(0.01

)

 

 

$

(0.09

)

 

 

$

(0.09

)

 

 

$

0.02

 

 

 

$

0.02

 

 

 

$

0.01

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraordinary items

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

Diluted income per share

 

 

$

0.19

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

$

0.37

 

 

 

$

0.27

 

 

 

 

$

0.53

 

 

 

$

0.52

 

 

 

$

0.25

 

 

 

$

0.27

 

 

 

$

(0.52

)

 

 

$

(0.49

)

 

 

$

0.08

 

 


(1)          See Note 1 related to the restated consolidated financial statements

(2)          Previously reported numbers have been adjusted due to the classification of Eden and Indian Queens as discontinued businesses.

191




 

Quarter ended 2004

 

 

Quarter ended 2005

 

 

 

March 31

 

June 30

 

September 30

 

December 31

 

 

Mar 31

 

 

 

June 30

 

 

 

Sept 30

 

 

 

Dec 31

 

 

 

 

 

As Previously

 

As

 

As Previously

 

As

 

As Previously

 

As

 

As Previously

 

As

 

 

Reported(2)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Reported

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Reported

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Reported(2)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

Reported

 

Restated

 

Reported

 

Restated

 

Reported

 

Restated

 

Reported

 

Restated

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

 

Revenues

 

 

$

2,256

 

 

 

$

2,256

 

 

 

$

2,262

 

 

 

$

2,262

 

 

 

$

2,422

 

 

 

$

2,422

 

 

 

$

2,523

 

 

 

$

2,523

 

 

 

 

$

2,643

 

 

 

$

2,655

 

 

 

$

2,649

 

 

 

$

2,650

 

 

 

$

2,759

 

 

 

$

2,760

 

 

 

$

2,945

 

 

 

$

2,956

 

 

Gross Margin

 

 

$

684

 

 

 

$

684

 

 

 

$

656

 

 

 

$

656

 

 

 

$

736

 

 

 

$

736

 

 

 

$

706

 

 

 

$

706

 

 

 

 

823

 

 

 

835

 

 

 

526

 

 

 

532

 

 

 

897

 

 

 

899

 

 

 

923

 

 

 

933

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

42

 

 

 

$

36

 

 

 

$

103

 

 

 

$

143

 

 

 

$

86

 

 

 

$

66

 

 

 

$

27

 

 

 

$

19

 

 

 

 

122

 

 

 

132

 

 

 

87

 

 

 

86

 

 

 

214

 

 

 

217

 

 

 

175

 

 

 

139

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

(26

)

 

 

(26

)

 

 

(29

)

 

 

(29

)

 

 

7

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

82

 

 

 

82

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

(2

)

 

 

(2

)

 

 

30

 

 

 

30

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2

)

 

 

(3

)

 

Net income

 

 

$

16

 

 

 

$

10

 

 

 

$

74

 

 

 

$

114

 

 

 

$

93

 

 

 

$

73

 

 

 

$

109

 

 

 

$

101

 

 

 

 

$

124

 

 

 

$

134

 

 

 

$

85

 

 

 

$

84

 

 

 

$

244

 

 

 

$

247

 

 

 

$

177

 

 

 

$

140

 

 

Basic income per share (1):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

operations

 

 

$

0.07

 

 

 

$

0.06

 

 

 

$

0.16

 

 

 

$

0.22

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.10

 

 

 

$

0.04

 

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

(0.04

)

 

 

(0.04

)

 

 

(0.04

)

 

 

(0.04

)

 

 

0.01

 

 

 

0.01

 

 

 

0.13

 

 

 

0.13

 

 

Basic income per share

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

 

$

0.02

 

 

 

$

0.12

 

 

 

$

0.18

 

 

 

$

0.14

 

 

 

$

0.11

 

 

 

$

0.17

 

 

 

$

0.16

 

 

Diluted income per share(1):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic income per share:(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

0.07

 

 

 

$

0.06

 

 

 

$

0.16

 

 

 

$

0.22

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.10

 

 

 

$

0.04

 

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

 

 

$

0.19

 

 

 

$

0.21

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.33

 

 

 

$

0.33

 

 

 

$

0.27

 

 

 

$

0.21

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

(0.04

)

 

 

(0.04

)

 

 

(0.05

)

 

 

(0.04

)

 

 

0.01

 

 

 

0.01

 

 

 

0.13

 

 

 

0.13

 

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

0.05

 

 

 

$

0.05

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

0.01

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

(0.01

)

 

Basic income per share

 

 

$

0.19

 

 

 

$

0.21

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.38

 

 

 

$

0.38

 

 

 

$

0.27

 

 

 

$

0.21

 

 

Diluted income per share:(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

0.18

 

 

 

$

0.20

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.32

 

 

 

$

0.32

 

 

 

$

0.26

 

 

 

$

0.21

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

0.05

 

 

 

$

0.05

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

0.01

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

(0.01

)

 

Diluted income per share

 

 

$

0.03

 

 

 

$

0.02

 

 

 

$

0.11

 

 

 

$

0.18

 

 

 

$

0.14

 

 

 

$

0.11

 

 

 

$

0.17

 

 

 

$

0.16

 

 

 

 

$

0.18

 

 

 

$

0.20

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.13

 

 

 

$

0.37

 

 

 

$

0.37

 

 

 

$

0.26

 

 

 

$

0.21

 

 


(1)                The sum of these amounts does not equalSee Note 1 related to the annual amountrestated consolidated financial statements

(2)Previously reported numbers have been adjusted due to rounding or because the quarterly calculations are basedclassification of Eden and Indian Queens as discontinued businesses.

26.   SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

On February 22, 2007, the Company entered into a definitive agreement with Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”) dated February 15, 2007, to sell all of its shares of EDC for $739 million net of any withholding taxes. In addition, the agreement provided for the payment of a US$120 million dividend in 2007. On March 1, 2007, the shareholders of EDC approved and declared a US$120 million dividend, payable on varying numbersMarch 16, 2007, to all shareholders on record as of March 9, 2007. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company is the owner of 82.14% of the outstanding shares outstanding.of EDC, and therefore, on March 16, 2007, this subsidiary received the equivalent of approximately US$99 million in Bolivares that is currently being held in trust at a U.S. bank until the funds can be converted to U.S. Dollars. Under the terms of the purchase and sale agreement with the Republic of Venezuela, PDVSA has agreed to ensure that the Company’s portion of the dividend is converted by the Venezuelan government’s Foreign Exchange Commission, CADIVI, from Bolivares into U.S. Dollars at the current official exchange rate within 90 days of the dividend payment date. As of the date of this filing, the conversion of the Company’s portion of the dividend from Bolivares to U.S. Dollars has been submitted to CADIVI and is awaiting their approval.

The agreement provided that PDVSA would acquire our EDC common shares in a tender offer. PDVSA commenced and publicly announced the commencement of concurrent tender offers in Venezuela and the United States (the “Offers”) on April 9, 2007. The Offers provided for the purchase of 2,704,445,687 of EDC common shares at a U.S. Dollar equivalent amount of $0.2734 per common share, which is consistent with the price per share implied by the purchase price within the agreement. The closing of the Offers occurred on May 8, 2007, and the actual transfer of the shares along with payment of the purchase price occurred on May 16, 2007.

As a result of signing this agreement, we have concluded that a material impairment of our investment in EDC has occurred, which will be recorded in the first quarter ending March 31, 2007. This material impairment represents the net realizable value of our investment in EDC defined as the current estimated net book value at December 31, 2006 less the estimated purchase price. Management estimates that this pre-tax, non-cash charge will be in the range of $600 to $650 million.


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

There were no changes in or disagreements on any matters of accounting principles or financial disclosure between us and our independent auditors.

ITEM 9A.         CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that the Company files or submits under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the chief executive officer (“CEO”) and chief financial officer (“CFO”), as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

The Company carried out the evaluation required by paragraph (b) of the Exchange Act Rules 13a 1513a-15 and 15d 15,15d-15, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the CEO and CFO, of the effectiveness of our “disclosure controls and procedures” (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(e)13a-15(e) and 15d 15(e)15d-15(e)). Based upon this evaluation, as a result of the material weaknesses described below, the CEO and CFO concluded that as of December 31, 2005,2006, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective.effective to provide reasonable assurance that financial information we are required to disclose in our reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 was recorded, processed, summarized and reported accurately as evidenced by the material weaknesses described below.

To addressAs reported in Item 9A of the controlCompany’s 2005 Form 10-K/A filed on April 4, 2006, management reported that material weaknesses existed in our internal controls as of December 31, 2005. In conjunction with the evaluation of errors related to this May 23, 2007 restatement of the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005, and as a result of additional deficiencies noted during 2006 year-end review procedures, the Company identified five additional material weaknesses that existed as of December 31, 2005 but which were not previously identified or disclosed. Three of the newly identified material weaknesses were unremediated as of December 31, 2006 and relate to: A Lack of Detailed Accounting Records for Certain Holding Companies; A Lack of Adequate Controls and Procedures Related to Granting and Reporting of Share-Based Compensation, and A Lack of Adequate Procedures to Assess Whether an Investment in a Variable Interest Entity Should Be Consolidated. Two of the newly identified material weaknesses were remediated prior to December 31, 2006. These two material weaknesses relate to A Lack of Reconciliation and Review Procedures at our Subsidiary C.A. Electricidad de Caracas (“EDC”) and A Lack of Adequate Controls Regarding Balance Sheet Classification of Restricted Cash. Each of these material weaknesses and the remediation status is described further below in the section entitled “Management’s Report on Internal Controls over Financial Reporting” and “Remediation of Material Weaknesses,” respectively.

As a result of the material weaknesses described below, the Company performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures in order to prepare the consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America. Accordingly, management believes that the consolidated financial statements included in this 20052006 Form 10-K fairly present, in all material respects, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented.

Management’s Report on Internal ControlsControl over Financial Reporting

Management of the Company is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act. The Company's 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 in the United States of America and includes those policies and procedures that:

·pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;

·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

·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.

Management, including our CEO and CFO, does not expect that our internal controls will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of


controls must be considered relative to their costs. In addition, any evaluation of the effectiveness of controls is subject to risks that those internal controls may become inadequate in future periods because of changes in business conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures deteriorates.

Management assessed the effectiveness of our internal controlscontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005.2006. In making this assessment, management used the criteria established in Internal Control-IntegratedControl—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

A material weakness is a significant deficiency (within the meaning of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2), or combination of significant deficiencies, that result in there being a more than remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected.

As reported in Item 9 of the Company’s 2004 Form 10 K/A, management reported that material weaknesses existed in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004. Management determined that the following material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting that existed as of December 31, 2005 (which includes material weaknessesand were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K/A filed on April 4, 2006 also existed as of December 31, 2004 that have not been remediated):

Income Taxes:2006:

The Company lacked effective controls for the proper reconciliation of the components of its parent company and subsidiaries’ income tax assets and liabilities to related consolidated balance sheet accounts, including a detailed comparison of items filed in the subsidiaries’ tax returns to the corresponding calculation of U.S. GAAP balance sheet tax accounts. The Company lacked an effective control to ensure that foreign subsidiaries whose functional currency is the U.S. dollar had properly classified income tax accounts as monetary, rather than non-monetary, assets and liabilities at the time of acquisition. These subsidiaries were not re-measuring their deferred tax balances each period in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement (“SFAS”) No. 52, Foreign Currency Translation and SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. Finally, the Company determined that it lacked effective controls and procedures for evaluating and recording tax related purchase accounting adjustments to the financial statements. These control deficiencies resulted in adjustments that were required to be made to the consolidated financial statements and are included in this Form 10-K. In addition, these deficiencies could result in a future misstatement of certain account balances that would result in a material misstatement to the annual or interim financial statements.

Aggregation of Control Deficiencies at our Cameroonian Subsidiary:

AES SONEL, a 56% owned subsidiary of the Company located in Cameroon, lacked adequate and effective controls related to transactional accounting and financial reporting. These deficiencies included a lack of timely and sufficient financial statement account reconciliation and analysis, lack of sufficient support resources within the accounting and finance group, inadequate preparation and review of purchase accounting adjustments incorrectly recorded in 2002, and errors in the translation of local currency financial statements to the U.S. Dollar. These deficiencies could result in a future misstatement of certain account balances that would result in a material misstatement to the annual or interim financial statements.

Lack of U.S. GAAP Expertise in Brazilian Businesses:

The Company lacked effective controls to ensure the proper application of certain U.S. GAAP principles, not limited to, SFAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows, SFAS No. 71, Accounting for the Effects of


Certain Types of Regulation, SFAS No. 87, Employers’ Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. In addition, the Company lacked effective controls to ensure appropriate conversion and analysis of Brazilian GAAP to U.S. GAAP financial statements for certain of our Brazilian subsidiaries. These control deficiencies resulted in adjustments that were required to be made to the consolidated financial statements and are included in this Form 10-K. In addition, these deficiencies could result in a future misstatement of certain account balances that would result in a material misstatement to the annual or interim financial statements.

Treatment of Intercompany Loans Denominated in Other Than the Functional Currency:

The Company previously reported it lacked effective controls to ensure the proper application of SFAS No. 52, Foreign Currency Translation,, related to the treatment of foreign currency gains or losses on certain long term intercompany loan balances denominated in other than the entity’s functional currency and lacked appropriate documentation for the determination of certain of its holding companies’ functional currencies. The Company determinedalso previously reported it was incorrectly translating certain loan balances due to the fact that it lacked an effective assessment process to identify and document whether or not a loan was to be repaid in the foreseeable future at inception and to update this determination on a periodic basis. Also, the Company previously reported it had incorrectly determined the functional currency for one of its holding companies which impacted the proper translation of its intercompany loan balances. These

The Company had designed and implemented new controls to address this material weakness, but in testing these controls during and subsequent to the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company identified


deficiencies in the execution and operating effectiveness of certain of the newly implemented controls. Therefore, the Company determined that the lack of effective controls could result in a futuremore than remote likelihood of material misstatement and thus continues to represent a material weakness as of certainDecember 31, 2006.

Aggregation of Control Deficiencies at our Cameroonian Subsidiary:

The Company previously reported that AES SONEL, a 56% owned subsidiary of the Company located in Cameroon, lacked adequate and effective controls related to transactional accounting and financial reporting. These deficiencies included a lack of timely and sufficient financial statement account balancesreconciliation and analysis, a lack of sufficient support resources within the accounting and finance group, inadequate preparation and review of purchase accounting adjustments incorrectly recorded in 2002, and errors in the translation of local currency financial statements to the U.S. Dollar. As a result of the aggregation of control deficiencies, the Company determined that wouldthe lack of effectively designed and operating controls at SONEL could result in a more than remote likelihood of material misstatement and thus continues to the annual or interim financial statements.represent a material weakness as of December 31, 2006.

Derivative Accounting:

The Company previously reported it lacked effective controls related to accounting for certain derivatives under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging ActivitiesActivities. . Specifically, a deficiency was identified related to a lack of sufficient controls designed to ensure the adequate analysis and documentation of whether or not certain fuel contracts or power purchase contracts met the criteria of being accounted for as a derivative instrument at inception and on an ongoing basis. In addition, theThe Company also previously reported it lacked an effective control to ensure that an adequate derivativehedge valuation was performed. Subsequent to filing the 2004 Form 10-K/A, the Company identified an additional deficiency related to a lack of sufficientperformed and lacked effective controls to ensure preparation of adequate documentation of the on-going assessment of hedge effectiveness, in accordance with SFAS 133, for certain interest rate and foreign currency hedge contracts entered into prior to 2005. These control deficiencies resultedDuring the 2006 financial statement preparation, the Company detected several derivative-related errors related to the accounting for embedded derivatives in adjustmentscontracts that were requiredexecuted prior to be made to2006. These errors were adjusted in conjunction with the consolidatedMay 23, 2007 restatement of the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and are included2005 (see further description in Restatement section of Part I of this Form 10-K. In addition,document). As a result of these deficiencieserrors, and the lack of sufficient time to test operating effectiveness of newly implemented controls, the Company determined that the lack of effective controls could result in a futuremore than remote likelihood of material misstatement and thus continues to represent a material weakness as of December 31, 2006.

Management determined that the following material weaknesses existed as of December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2006, but were not previously identified or reported:

Lack of Detailed Accounting Records for Certain Holding Companies:

While testing newly implemented controls for the Income Tax and Treatment of Intercompany Loan material weaknesses during and subsequent to the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company identified a risk related to a lack of maintenance of separate legal entity books and records for certain accountholding companies. While the Company believes it has manual processes in place to capture and segregate all material transactions related to these entities, there remains a risk that a material misstatement could occur related to an error in the translation of intercompany loan balances denominated in other than the entity’s functional currency for these holding companies or in the Company’s income tax provision calculations. In addition, there is a risk that wouldas the Company continues to add holding companies, without establishing separate legal entity books and records, certain transactions may not be captured by the current manual processes. As a result, the Company has determined that the failure to establish controls to maintain


separate legal entity books and records for certain holding companies could result in a more than remote likelihood of material misstatement and represents a material weakness as of December 31, 2006.

Lack of Adequate Controls and Procedures Related to Granting and Reporting of Share-Based Compensation:

The Company recently completed its review of share-based compensation and determined that it lacked effective controls and procedures related to its accounting for share-based compensation resulting from weaknesses in its granting practices. These weaknesses include an adequate understanding, communication and recording of the compensation expense based on the determination of appropriate measurement dates for accounting purposes. The errors identified from this review were adjusted in conjunction with the May 23, 2007 restatement of the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005. As a result, the Company has determined that the lack of adequate controls and procedures related to share-based compensation could result in a more than remote likelihood of a material misstatement and represents a material weakness as of December 31, 2006.

Lack of Adequate Procedures to Assess Whether an Investment in a Variable Interest Entity Should Be Consolidated:

During the course of year end 2006 closing procedures and during review of certain derivative contracts, the Company became aware of additional facts in the form of an additional contract, not originally considered during the implementation of FIN 46R, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”, that would have impacted the assessment as to which enterprise is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity in Cartagena, Spain, of which the Company is the majority investor. Based on this additional information, the Company has determined it is not the primary beneficiary and should therefore not have consolidated the business, rather the Company’s interest in this variable interest entity should have been accounted for under the equity method as of the adoption of FIN 46R as of January 1, 2004 forward. The error was adjusted in conjunction with the May 23, 2007 restatement of the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005. As a result of this error and the resulting impacts to the annual or interim financial statements.consolidated balance sheet, the Company has determined that the lack of adequate controls over procedures to ensure that all relevant contractual information has been identified and considered in the determination as to whether a variable interest entity should be consolidated in accordance with FIN 46R could result in a more than remote likelihood of a material misstatement and represents a material weakness as of December 31, 2006.

Conclusion:Conclusion

Because ofAs evidenced by the material weaknesses described above, management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2005,2006, the Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting.

The Company’s independent auditor has issued an attestation report on management’s assessment of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Remediation of Existing Material Weaknesses:

The following material weaknesses that existed as of December 31, 2005 and were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K filed on April 4, 2006 were remediated as of December 31, 2006:

Income Taxes:

The Company previously reported it lacked effective controls for the proper reconciliation of the components of its parent company and subsidiaries’ income tax assets and liabilities to related consolidated balance sheet accounts, including a detailed comparison of items filed in the subsidiaries’ tax returns to the


corresponding calculation of U.S. GAAP balance sheet tax accounts. The Company previously reported it also lacked an effective control to ensure that foreign subsidiaries whose functional currency is the U.S. dollar had properly classified income tax accounts as monetary, rather than non-monetary, assets and liabilities at the time of acquisition. Finally, the Company previously reported that it lacked effective controls and procedures for evaluating and recording tax related purchase accounting adjustments to the financial statements.

As of December 31, 2005, the Company had corrected errors identified and recorded tax accounting adjustments on the appropriate subsidiaries’ books for ongoing tracking, reconciliation and translation, where appropriate. As of June 30, 2006, the Company had implemented new controls and procedures and successfully completed testing of the operating effectiveness of those new controls and procedures during the third and fourth quarters of 2006. The completed steps of the remediation plan included the following:

·       Adopted a more rigorous approach to communicate, document and reconcile the detailed components of subsidiary income tax assets and liabilities including development and distribution of policy and procedure manuals and detailed checklists for use by our subsidiaries;

·       Expanded staffing and resources at the Corporate office and continued use of external third party assistance until additional staff can be hired at the subsidiary level;

·       Provided multiple sessions of SFAS 109 training to the income tax accounting personnel throughout the Company;

·       Developed new control processes to ensure tax related purchase accounting adjustments are properly evaluated and recorded; and

·       Implemented additional procedures for tax and accounting personnel in the identification and evaluation of non-recurring tax adjustments and in tracking movements in deferred tax accounts recorded by the parent company and its subsidiaries.

Due to the successful testing results of operating effectiveness for the remediation steps described above, the Company concluded that as of December 31, 2006 it has effectively remediated this previously reported material weakness related to controls over accounting for income taxes.

Lack of U.S. GAAP Expertise in Brazilian Businesses:

The Company previously reported it lacked effective controls to ensure the proper application of U.S. GAAP, including, but not limited to, SFAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows, SFAS No. 71, Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation, SFAS No. 87, Employers’ Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. In addition, the Company previously reported it lacked effective controls to ensure appropriate conversion and analysis of Brazilian GAAP to U.S. GAAP financial statements for certain of our Brazilian subsidiaries. The Company has performed detailed analysis of the U.S. GAAP financial results of the Brazilian businesses, including conversion of local GAAP to U.S. GAAP. The Company began implementing its remediation plan during the first quarter of 2006 and as of the end of the third quarter finalized its implementation of new controls and procedures. The operating effectiveness of these new controls and procedures were successfully tested during the fourth quarter 2006 and in conjunction with the year end closing. The completed steps of the remediation plan included the following:

·       Performed specific accounting process reviews, identified new controls, and developed and distributed detailed U.S. GAAP and operational accounting policy and procedure guidance that specifically addressed application of SFAS 71, SFAS 133, SFAS 109, SFAS 95 and SFAS 87;

·       Provided general and detailed U.S. GAAP training throughout the Brazilian finance organization; and


·       Completed hiring of additional finance personnel to support the local, regulatory and U.S. GAAP reporting requirements within the Brazilian businesses.

Due to the successful testing results of operating effectiveness for the remediation steps described above, the Company concluded that as of December 31, 2006 it has effectively remediated this previously reported material weakness related to a lack of U.S. GAAP expertise in its Brazilian businesses.

The following additional material weaknesses were identified in 2006 and remediated as of December 31, 2006:

Lack of Adequate Reconciliation and Review Procedures at our Subsidiary C.A. Electricidad de Caracas (“EDC”):

During 2006, the Company had reported to the Audit Committee that a lack of effective controls regarding recording deferred revenue, lack of timely and complete reconciliation of the construction work in progress (“CWIP”) account, as well as several other balance sheet accounts, represented significant deficiencies as of December 31, 2005. At the end of the third quarter of 2006, management concluded that these errors, individually and in aggregate, did not represent a material weakness and believed that certain review procedures performed by the Company mitigated the risk of a more than remote likelihood that a material misstatement to the Company’s consolidated financial statements would not be prevented or detected. However, as a result of the subsequent identification of control failures resulting in the restatement adjustments related to errors in depreciation based on the incorrect useful life and assumed salvage value of a power plant asset, the Company revised its conclusion and determined that the aggregation of errors at EDC resulted in a more than remote likelihood of material error and therefore represented a material weakness as of December 31, 2005. These errors were adjusted in conjunction with the May 23, 2007 restatement of the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005 (see further description in Restatement section of Part I of this document.)

As a result of strengthening the review and reconciliation procedures and implementing controls at EDC during the course of 2006, a number of the material adjustments were identified and resolved. As a result, the Company has concluded that this material weakness was effectively remediated as of December 31, 2006.

Lack of Adequate Controls Regarding Balance Sheet Classification of Restricted Cash:

As a result of more detailed reviews performed by the Company during 2006, certain AES subsidiaries were identified that had not properly classified cash accounts as “restricted”. This resulted in an error in the classification of amounts between “Cash and cash equivalents” and “Restricted cash”, which appearsare separate components of “Current Assets” on page 167.the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets for the year ending December 31, 2005. Certain legal conditions existed within the loan agreements that placed a restriction on cash. The control failure was a lack of controls over the proper application and understanding of the requirement to separately classify cash balances subject to such restrictions. These errors were adjusted in conjunction with the May 23, 2007 restatement of the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005 (see further description in Restatement section of Part I of this document). Consequently, the Company determined that the ineffective operation of controls related to classification of cash balances in accordance with its accounting policy in 2005 resulted in a more than remote likelihood of material misstatement and therefore represented a material weakness as of December 31, 2005.

As a result of strengthening the review procedures and correcting the operating effectiveness of controls related to application of the accounting policy related to classification of cash during 2006, as well as the identification and resolution of the material adjustments by these business units during 2006, the Company has concluded that this material weakness was effectively remediated as of December 31, 2006.


Material Weaknesses Remediation Plans:Plans as of the date of filing this Form 10-K

Management and our Board of Directors are committed to the remediation of these material weaknesses as well as the continued improvement of the Company’s overall system of internal control over financial reporting. Management has developedis implementing remediation plans for each of the weaknesses described below and is undergoinghas taken efforts to strengthen the existing finance organization and systems across the


Company. These efforts include the planned expansion ofhiring additional accounting and tax personnel at the corporateCorporate office to provide technical support and oversight of our global financial processes, as well as addingassessing where additional finance resources tomay be needed at our subsidiaries, where applicable. In addition, varioussubsidiaries. Various levels of training programs on specific aspects of U.S. GAAP are beinghave been developed for distribution to the subsidiaries during 2006. The Company is also utilizing additional resources to assist in the program management aspect of each material weakness remediation plan and has committed to provide status reportsprovided to our external auditorssubsidiaries throughout 2006 and our Audit Committeethrough the date of the Board of Directors on a monthly basis throughout 2006.

Income Taxes:

The Company had corrected errors identified and recorded tax accounting adjustments on the appropriate subsidiaries’ books for ongoing tracking, reconciliation and translation, where appropriate. The Company currently is executing its remediation plan that includes the following:

·Adopting a more rigorous approach to communicate, document and reconcile the detailed components of subsidiary income tax assets and liabilities including developing policy and procedure manuals and detailed checklists for use by our subsidiaries;

·Expanding staffing and resources worldwide, including the continued use of external third party assistance, along with providing specific SFAS 109 training to the income tax accounting function throughout the Company;

·Continuing to identify and implement additional best practice solutions, including the use of automated resources to ensure efficient data collection, integration and adherence to controls as well as developing best practice processes to ensure tax related purchase accounting adjustments are properly evaluated and recorded; and

·Implementing additional procedures for tax and accounting personnel in the identification and evaluation of non-recurring tax adjustments and in tracking movements in deferred tax accounts recorded by the parent company and its subsidiaries.

Aggregation of Control Deficiencies at our Cameroonian Subsidiary:

The Company utilized our Internal Audit department, in conjunction with our Corporate finance department, to assist the SONEL finance team with performing additional detailed analytical reviews of the financial statements to obtain assurance that results were not misstated. The Company currently is executing its remediation plan that includes the following:

·Developing a dedicated remediation team led by the AES CFO’s organization, that includes members of our global information technology department, Internal Audit, the SONEL finance team, and external resources;

·Expanding the information technology infrastructure, resources, and capabilities across SONEL’s business units in order to centralize and improve the financial data collection process;

·Creating detailed training programs on financial controls, policies and procedures for use by SONEL business units to ensure on-going application and execution of controls; and

·Developing tools to perform consistent, routine analytical reviews of the financial results, including key balance sheet account analyses and conversion of local currency financial statements to U.S. Dollar.


Lack of U.S. GAAP Expertise in Brazilian Businesses:

The Company performed detailed analysis of the U.S. GAAP financial results, including conversion of local GAAP to U.S. GAAP. Specific reviews of U.S. GAAP issues were performed by the Brazil country level CFO and additional reviews of significant accounting positions were added to the on-going monthly and quarterly analysis discussions held between the Brazilian finance organization and the Corporate finance department, to obtain assurance that reported results are not misstated. The Company currently is executing its remediation plan that includes the following:

·Engaging consultants to work in conjunction with the Corporate finance department to develop detailed U.S. GAAP and operational accounting policy and procedure guidance, including SFAS 71, SFAS 133, SFAS 109, SFAS 95 and SFAS 87;

·Utilizing local recruiters to assist with hiring personnel for positions identified as a result of the evaluation of the local finance organization completed by the Brazilian businesses; and

·Developing procedures to ensure timely and complete communication and evaluation of operational issues that have a potential impact on the financial results within the Brazilian businesses and formalizing processes to evaluate complex issues with technical accounting personnel at Corporate.this filing.

Treatment of Intercompany Loans Denominated in Other Than the Functional Currency:

TheAs of December 31, 2005, the Company confirmed the correct evaluation and documentation of certain material intercompany loans with the parent denominated in currencies other than the entity’s functional currency to ensure proper application of SFAS 52 and re-evaluated and documented the functional currencies of certain U.S. and non U.S. holding companies to ensure that proper SFAS 52 translations were being performed. During 2006, the Company implemented additional control procedures designed to ensure the appropriate documentation and evaluation of the determination of an entity’s functional currency on a periodic basis, particularly as it relates to holding companies that might have material intercompany transactions. As of December 31, 2006, the Company had implemented new controls and procedures. The Company currently is executing itscompleted steps of the remediation plan that includesincluded the following:

·Developing additional       Developed and distributed accounting policy guidance for communication to its subsidiaries regarding the requirements of SFAS 52 related to intercompany loan transactions to ensure proper evaluation of material transactions;

·Providing detailed training programs       Compiled and reviewed extensive information on critical aspectsits operating business and holding company legal entity functional currency designations and intercompany loans;

·       Provided multiple sessions of SFAS 52 including workshopstraining to the accounting function throughout the Company;

·       Developed policies requiring review and functional currency determination at the time a new legal entity is established and documentation of intercompany loan relationships and appropriate accounting treatment based upon the nature of the loan when the loan is denominated in other than the entity’s functional currency; and

·       Implemented additional procedures with respect to the financial statement preparation process to require validation of new intercompany loan activity by each operating subsidiary and review of functional currency determination for newly established operating subsidiaries.

Although the Company believes it has, during 2007, implemented appropriate controls to ensure remediation of the previously reported material weakness, it will continue to assess the operating effectiveness of these controls as well as identify areas for improvement to the current execution of certain controls prior to concluding on howfull remediation. In order to apply SFAS 52complete remediation of this material weakness, the Company will continue to intercompany transactions;improve policies and

·Developing and implementing procedures to identify new legal entities and intercompany loans and additional training will also be provided to ensure documentationsuch transactions are properly reviewed and documented. Subsequent testing of operating effectiveness testing will be performed for the newly implemented controls prior to concluding on remediation.


Aggregation of Control Deficiencies at our Cameroonian Subsidiary:

The Company has performed detailed analytical reviews of SONEL’s financial statements to obtain assurance that reported results are not misstated. As part of its 2006 remediation plan, SONEL reported implementation of certain key controls related to the analytical review during the third and fourth quarters of 2006. In addition, the business unit performed limited self testing of the proper determinationremediation work performed to date. Additional and more comprehensive testing of an entity’sall key controls will occur during the first half of 2007. The Company has or is in the process of executing the following steps in its remediation plan:

·       Completed initial restructuring and hiring of additional finance personnel for the SONEL finance organization, including the core SONEL financial reporting and financial controls teams, as well as within the operational and functional areas and regional offices. The Company determined that additional resources are needed in the SONEL corporate and regional accounting and finance groups, therefore this hiring effort will continue during the first half of 2007;

·       Codified the local end of month closing procedures and continuing to perform the local monthly analytical reviews of the financial statements including key balance sheet account analysis and conversion of local currency on a periodic basis, particularly as it relatesfinancial statements to U.S. dollar;

·       Implementing underlying key controls supporting the Company’s material holding company structures.financial statement analytic procedures while designing and implementing specific action plans to remediate known key control deficiencies in all business cycles while resolving outstanding account reconciliation issues;

·       Developing and distributing local commercial and financial and accounting policies and procedure guidance for use by SONEL regional offices to ensure implementation and future execution of controls; and

·       Expanding the information technology infrastructure, resources, and capabilities across SONEL’s business units in order to centralize and improve the financial data collection process and operational efficiency of financial reporting.

Derivative Accounting:

The Company previously performed a reassessment of certain material fuel contracts and power purchase contracts to confirm that appropriate documentation existed or that the contracts did not qualify as derivatives. The Company also previously performed a detailed review of material components of the other comprehensive income balance within stockholders’ equity to ensure appropriate application of on-going hedge effectiveness testing and documentation. TheAs of the end of the third quarter, the Company currently is executing itsimplemented new controls and procedures and began testing operating effectiveness during the fourth quarter of 2006.

200




Although it was not a focus of the remediation effort, while evaluating and testing the implementation of the remediation plan that includesdescribed below, the Company discovered some immaterial errors in contracts entered into prior to 2006 related to the identification of embedded derivatives at the time of inception. Based on this, the Company performed a targeted review of selected contracts entered into prior to 2006 which contained similar indices or foreign currency clauses and performed additional review procedures to confirm whether further errors existed. Although the Company believes it has implemented appropriate controls to ensure remediation of the previously identified material weakness, it will continue to assess the operating effectiveness of these controls as well as identify areas for improvement to the execution of current controls, before concluding on full remediation. The completed steps related to the remediation plan include the following:

·Engaging       Engaged outside resources to help improveassist management in refining comprehensive derivative policies and procedures for use by our subsidiaries when evaluating, reviewing and approving contracts that may qualify as derivatives or hedges or that may contain embedded derivatives;


·Evaluating       Developed an automated solutionssolution (implemented in February 2007) to collect and consolidate all material contracts at our subsidiaries to ensureassist in the appropriate evaluation and documentation has been followedrequirements in accordance with SFAS 133;

·Developing additional       Provided detailed training to subsidiaries on new policy and procedure guidance related to contract evaluation. Additional training will be provided on a routine basisin the future to both finance and non-finance employees who are responsible for hedging activities, development of power purchase agreements and negotiation of significant purchase contracts; and

·Expanding       Centralized hedge assessments and valuations within the technicalCorporate Accounting and Risk Management functions.

As certain controls continued to be implemented subsequent to December 31, 2006, and the fact that a lack of sufficient time had passed to ensure operating effectiveness of the new controls, the Company will perform subsequent testing of operating effectiveness of the newly implemented controls prior to concluding on remediation.

Lack of Detailed Accounting Records for Certain Holding Companies:

While the Company believes it has manual processes in place to capture all material transactions there remains a risk that due to the lack of detailed records for these holding companies, transactions may not be timely captured or evaluated at the appropriate level of detail during the translation of intercompany loan balances denominated in other than the entity’s functional currency for these holding companies or the computation of the tax provision. The remediation plan will include the following:

·       Outline a plan to communicate, document and track the formation or liquidation or changes to the Company’s legal entities, including distribution of updated policies and procedures and checklists to track these changes;

·       Provide training to the various corporate and field functions concerning best practices for the maintenance of these legal entities;

·       Expand staffing and resources dedicated to create current legal entity accounting records; and

·       Create a priority list of legal entities for purposes of establishing comprehensive general ledger packages.

Lack of Adequate Controls and Procedures Related to Granting and Reporting of Share-Based Compensation:

The Company retained an outside consulting firm to assist with the collection and processing of data relating to the Company’s share-based compensation grants and electronic discovery for the periods 1997-2007. The outside consulting firm also provided a team of forensic accountants to assist the Company


with its: (i) evaluation of relevant SEC and FASB guidance relating to share-based compensation; (ii) implementation of procedures for review of electronic data, including emails; and (iii) analysis of the information used to determine measurement dates, strike prices and valuations required to reach the resulting accounting adjustments. All material adjustments have been recorded in the respective financial statements included in this restatement.

The Company has instituted a moratorium on the issuance or modification of grants of share-based compensation until such time as it determines that grants can be administered and accounted for correctly. This moratorium shall be lifted only in special circumstances, such as new hire grants or the departure of an employee, and must have the approval of the CEO and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors along with specific reviews to ensure the grants are properly administered and accounted for. The remediation plan includes the following:

·       Enhancing the knowledge base of our personnel including providing instruction to the share-based compensation administrators regarding the definition of measurement date issues for subsequent administration and instruction regarding the requirements of FAS 123(R) to the accounting so they can properly account for share-based compensation;

·       Establishing formal policies and procedures to develop inter-departmental communication whereby the share-based compensation administrators will timely notify accounting personnel who will support our subsidiariesof grants, modifications to grants, or other relevant information so that accounting can make the necessary fair value adjustments;

·       Establishing formal polices and procedures in the evaluationgranting process to ensure that the measurement date and the grant date are the same; and

·       Performing a comprehensive review of derivative implications within hedge instrumentsthe Company’s stock compensation database to ensure that it is current, accurate and purchase/sale contracts.complete as the point of record for all outstanding share-based compensation and establishing monthly database maintenance procedures to ensure on-going reconciliation and roll forward from the administrative database to the Company’s accounting records.

Lack of Adequate Controls to Assess Whether an Investment in a Variable Interest Entity Should Be Consolidated:

The Company believes it has effectively remediated this material weakness during the course of executing procedures during the second quarter of 2007 by executing effective controls to ensure the proper determination of and accounting for variable interest entities across the Company.

Changes in Internal ControlsControl:

As described above, inIn the course of our evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures, management considered certain internal control areas in which we have made and are continuing to make changes to improve and enhance controls. Based upon that evaluation, the CEO and CFO concluded that other than the identification of new material weaknesses, the remediation of certain previously reported and newly identified material weaknesses, and progress on remediation of certain previously reported and newly identified material weaknesses, as discussed above, there were no changes in our internal controlscontrol over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by paragraph (d) of Exchange Act Rules 13a 1513a-15 or 15d 15,15d-15 that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 20052006 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal controls over financial reporting.

166202




REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The AES Corporation
Arlington, Virginia

We have audited management's assessment, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting, that The AES Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006 because of the effect of the material weaknesses identified in management's assessment based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. 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 an opinion on management's assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit 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. Our audit included 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 considered 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 by, or under the supervision of, the company's principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company's board of directors, management, and other personnel 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 (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) 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 (3) 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 the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. The following material weaknesses have been identified and included in management's assessment:

Income Taxes:Treatment of Intercompany Loans Denominated in Other Than the Functional Currency:

The designCompany lacked effectively operating controls to ensure the proper application of SFAS No. 52, Foreign Currency Translation, related to the Company’s internal control over financial reportingtreatment of foreign currency gains or losses on certain


long term intercompany loan balances denominated in other than the entity’s functional currency and lacked effective controlsappropriate documentation for the proper reconciliationdetermination of the componentscertain of its parent company and subsidiaries’ income tax assets and


liabilities to related consolidated balance sheet accounts, including a detailed comparison of items filed in the subsidiaries’ tax returnsholding companies’ functional currencies. The Company determined it was incorrectly translating certain loan balances due to the corresponding calculation of U.S. GAAP balance sheet tax accounts.  In addition, the Company determinedfact that it lacked an effective controleffectively operating assessment process to ensure that foreign subsidiaries whoseidentify and document whether or not a loan was to be repaid in the foreseeable future at inception and to update this determination on a periodic basis. Also, the Company had incorrectly determined the functional currency isfor one of its holding companies which impacted the U.S. dollar had properly classified income tax accounts as monetary, rather than non-monetary, assets and liabilities at the timeproper translation of acquisition.its intercompany loan balances. These subsidiaries were not re-measuring their deferred tax balances each period in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement (SFAS) No. 52, Foreign Currency Translation and SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. Finally, the company determined that it lacked effectively operating controls and procedures for evaluating and recording tax related purchase accounting adjustments to the financial statements. These control deficiencies resulted in adjustments to the deferred tax assets, deferred tax expense, and cumulative translation adjustment accounts, and could result in a misstatement of the currentretained earnings, other expense, functional currency translation gain/loss, and deferred income taxes, property, plant and equipment, goodwill, minority interestcumulative translation adjustment accounts and related disclosures that would result in a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.

Aggregation of Control Deficiencies at a Cameroonian Subsidiary:

AES SONEL, a 56% owned subsidiary of the Company located in Cameroon, lacked adequately designed and effectively operating controls related to transactional accounting and financial reporting. These deficiencies included a lack of timely and sufficient financial statement account reconciliation and analysis, lack of sufficient support resources within the accounting and finance group, inadequate preparation and review of purchase accounting adjustments incorrectly recorded in 2002, and errors in the translation of local currency financial statements to the U.S. dollar. These deficiencies, in the aggregate, could result in a misstatement of the other assets and accumulated other comprehensive income accounts that would result in a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.

Lack of U.S. GAAP Expertise in Brazilian Businesses:

The Company lacked effectively operating controls to ensure the proper application of certain U.S. GAAP principles, not limited to, SFAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows, SFAS No. 71, Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation, SFAS No. 87, Employers’ Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. In addition, the Company lacked effectively operating controls to ensure appropriate conversion and analysis of Brazilian GAAP to U.S. GAAP financial statements for certain of its Brazilian subsidiaries. These control deficiencies resulted in adjustments to the minority interest, cumulative translation adjustment, accrued liabilities, pension liabilities, other comprehensive income, regulatory assets, receivables, payables, and income tax accounts, and could result in misstatement of the cash, investments, and goodwill accounts that would result in a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.

Treatment of Intercompany Loans Denominated in Other Than the Functional Currency: 

The Company lacked effectively operating controls to ensure the proper application of SFAS No. 52, Foreign Currency Translation, related to the treatment of foreign currency gains or losses on certain long term intercompany loan balances denominated in other than the entity’s functional currency and lacked appropriate documentation for the determination of certain of its holding companies’ functional currencies. The Company determined it was incorrectly translating certain loan balances due to the fact that it lacked an effectively operating assessment process to identify and document whether or not a loan was to be repaid in the foreseeable future at inception and to update this determination on a periodic basis. Also, the Company had incorrectly determined the functional currency for one of its holding companies which impacted the proper translation of its intercompany loan balances. These deficiencies could result in a misstatement of the retained earnings, other expense, functional currency translation gain/loss, and cumulative translation allowance accounts that would result in a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.


Derivative Accounting:

The Company lacked effectively designed and operating controls related to accounting for certain derivatives under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Specifically, the company lacked effectively designed and operating controls to ensure that adequate analysis and documentation of whether or not certain fuel contracts or power purchase contracts met the criteria of being accounted for as a derivative instrument at inception and on an ongoing basis. In addition theThe Company also lacked an effective control to ensure adequate derivative valuation was performed. Subsequent to the filing of the 2004 Form 10-K/A, the Company identified an additional deficiency related to a lack of sufficiently designed and operating controls to ensure adequate hedge valuation was performed and lacked effective controls to ensure preparation of adequate documentation of the ongoingon-going assessment of hedge effectiveness, in accordance with SFAS 133, for certain interest rate and foreign currency hedge contracts entered into prior to 2005. In addition the Company lacked effective controls to determine whether or not fuel, power purchase and other contracts contained embedded derivatives. These control deficiencies resulted in adjustments to the accumulated other comprehensive income, interest expense, foreign currency transaction gainsgain and losses on net monetary position,loss, income tax expense, and minority interest expense accounts, and could result in a misstatement of the long term liabilities or assets, cost of sales, or revenue accounts that would result in a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.

Lack of Detailed Accounting Records for Certain Holding Companies:

The Company does not maintain detailed accounting records for certain holding companies and relies on manual processes to capture and segregate all material transactions relating to these holding companies. The lack of detailed accounting records creates a risk of error related to the translation of intercompany loan balances denominated in other than the entity’s functional currency for these holding companies and a risk of error related to the Company’s income tax provision calculations. In addition, there is a risk that as the Company continues to add holding companies, without establishing separate legal entity books and records, certain transactions may not be captured by the current manual processes. The lack of detailed accounting records for certain holding companies could result


in a misstatement of intercompany loan balances, translation gains and losses, or the income tax provision that would result in a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.

Lack of Adequate Controls and Procedures Related to Granting and Reporting of Share-Based Compensation:

The Company lacked effective controls related to stock options granting procedures and practices, including a lack of policies and procedures regarding maintenance of records supporting the granting activities, grant date, determination of the measurement date and communication of stock option awards from inception of the related share-based compensation plans from 1997 through 2006. The lack of effective controls related to stock options resulted in adjustments to compensation expense and contributed capital for periods prior to 2004 that would result in a material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.

Lack of Adequate Controls to Assess Whether an Investment in a Variable Interest Entity Should Be Consolidated:

The Company lacked effective controls and procedures to ensure the appropriate application of FIN 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, in determining whether an investment in a variable interest entity should be consolidated. The lack of effective controls resulted in an adjustment to deconsolidate the Company’s subsidiary in Spain and could result in an additional material misstatement of annual or interim financial statements.

These material weaknesses were considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005,2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, cash flows and financial statement schedules as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005,2006, of the Company and this report does not affect our report on such financial statements and financial statement schedules.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Also in our opinion, because of the effect of the material weaknesses described above on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, the Company has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005,2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, cash flows and financial statement schedules as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005,2006, of the Company and our report dated April 4, 2006May 22, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and financial statement schedules and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans,” in 2006, the adoption of the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations,” in 2005 and the restatement of the 2005 and 2004 consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

McLean, VA
April 4, 2006May 22, 2007


169




ITEM 9B.         OTHER INFORMATION.

None.

PART III

ITEM 10.          DIRECTORS, AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANTAND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 10b5-1 permits directors, officers and other key personnel to establish purchase and sale programs. The rule permits such persons to adopt written plans at a time before becoming aware of material nonpublic information and to sell shares according to a plan on a regular basis (for example, weekly or monthly), regardless of any subsequent nonpublic information they receive. Rule 10b5-1 plans allow systematic, pre-planned sales that take place over an extended period and should have a less disruptive influence on the price of our stock. Plans of this type inform the marketplace about the nature of the trading activities of our directors and officers. We recognize that our directors and officers may have reasons totally unrelated to their assessment of the Company or its prospects in determining to effect transaction in our common stock. Such reasons might include, for example tax and estate planning, the purchase of a home, the payment of college tuition, the establishment of a trust, the balancing of assets, or other personal reasons.

Mr. Paul Hanrahan, Mr. Robert Hemphill, Mrs. Flora Jaisinghani, Mr. Haresh Jaisinghani, Mr. Jay Kloosterboer, Mr. William Luraschi and Mr. Brian Miller adopted trading plans pursuant to Rule 10b5-1. Mr. Hanrahan, Mr. Luraschi and Mr. Miller terminated their plan during the first quarter of 2007.

CertainExecutive Officers of the Registrant

The following individuals are our executive officers:

Paul Hanrahan, 49 years old, has been our President and Chief Executive Officer since 2002. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Hanrahan was our Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President. In this role, he was responsible for business development activities and the operation of multiple electric utilities and generation facilities in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Mr. Hanrahan was previously the President and CEO of the AES China Generating Company, Ltd., a public company formerly listed on NASDAQ. Mr. Hanrahan also has managed other AES businesses in the United States, Europe and Asia. Prior to joining AES, Mr. Hanrahan served as a line officer on the U.S. fast attack nuclear submarine, USS Parche (SSN-683). Mr. Hanrahan is a graduate of Harvard Business School and the U.S. Naval Academy.

David S. Gee 52 years old, became an Executive Vice President of the Company in 2006 and the Regional President of North America in 2005. Prior to joining us in 2004, Mr. Gee was Vice President of Strategic Planning for PG&E in San Francisco, California from 2000 until 2004. Mr. Gee was a principal consultant for McKinsey & Co. from 1985 to 2000 in Houston, Mexico City and London. He was also an Associate for Baker Hughes and Booz Allen & Hamilton in Houston, Texas. Mr. Gee has a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Virginia and a Master of Science degree in Finance from the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Andres R. Gluski, 49 years old, has been an Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company since March 2007. Prior to becoming the Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Gluski was Executive Vice President and the Regional President of Latin America since 2005, and will continue as Regional President until a new Regional President is named. Mr. Gluski was Senior Vice President for the Caribbean and Central America from 2003 to 2005, was Group Manager and CEO of Electricidad de Caracas (“EDC”) (Venezuela) from 2002 to 2003, served as CEO of Gener (Chile) in 2001 and was Executive Vice President of EDC and Corporacion EDC. Prior to joining us in 1997, Mr. Gluski was Executive Vice President of Corporate Banking for Banco de Venezuela and Executive Vice President of Finance of CANTV in Venezuela. Mr. Gluski is a graduate of Wake Forest University and holds a Master of Arts and a Doctorate in Economics from the University of Virginia.


Victoria D. Harker, 42 years old, has been an Executive Vice President and our Chief Financial Officer since January 2006. Prior to joining us, Ms. Harker held the positions of Acting Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer of MCI from November 2002 through January 2006. Prior to that, Ms. Harker served as Chief Financial Officer of MCI Group, a unit of WorldCom Inc., from 1998 to 2002. Prior to 1998, Ms. Harker held several positions at MCI in the areas of finance, information regarding executive officerstechnology and operations. Ms. Harker received her Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Economics from the University of Virginia and a Master’s in Business Administration, Finance from American University.

Robert F. Hemphill, Jr., 63 years old, has been an Executive Vice President of the Company since rejoining us in February 2004. Mr. Hemphill served as our Director from June 1996 to February 2004 and was an Executive Vice President from 1982 to June 1996. Prior to this, Mr. Hemphill held various leadership positions since joining us in 1982. Mr. Hemphill also serves on the Boards of Reactive Nanotechnologies, Inc., Trophogen Inc. and the Electric Drive Transportation Association. Mr. Hemphill received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Yale University, a Master of Arts in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Master’s in Business Administration, Finance from George Washington University.

Jay L. Kloosterboer, 46 years old, is our Executive Vice President of Business Excellence. Mr. Kloosterboer joined us in 2003 as Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer. Prior to joining us, Mr. Kloosterboer held the positions of Vice President- Human Resources and Communications, Automation and Control Solutions; Vice President—Human Resources, Home & Building Control; Vice President- Human Resources, Aerospace Services; Vice President—Human Resources & Communications, Automotive Products Group and Director-Human Resources, Automotive Aftermarket of Honeywell International from 1996 to 2003. Mr. Kloosterboer also held management positions at General Electric and Morgan Stanley. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Marquette University and holds a Master of Arts degree from the New Mexico State University.

William R. Luraschi, 43 years old, is our Executive Vice President of Business Development and President of the Alternative Energy Business. Mr. Luraschi joined us in 1993 and has been an Executive Vice President since July 2003. He was our General Counsel from January 1994 until May 2005. Mr. Luraschi also served as Corporate Secretary from February 1996 until June 2002. Prior to joining us, he was an attorney with the law firm of Chadbourne & Parke, LLP. Mr. Luraschi received a Bachelor of Science from the University of Connecticut and holds a Juris Doctorate from Rutgers School of Law.

Brian A. Miller,41 years old, is our Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. Mr. Miller joined us in 2001 and has served in various positions including Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, Corporate Secretary, General Counsel for North America and Assistant General Counsel. Prior to joining us, he was an attorney with the law firm Chadbourne & Parke, LLP. Mr. Miller received his bachelor’s degree in History and Economics from Boston College and holds a Juris Doctorate from the University of Connecticut School of Law.

John McLaren, 44 years old, is an Executive Vice President of the Company, and Regional President of Europe & Africa. Mr. McLaren served as Vice President of Operations for AES Europe & Africa from 2003 to 2006 (and AES Europe, Middle East and Africa from May 2005 to January 2006), Group Manager for Operations in Europe & Africa from 2002 to 2003, Project Director from 2000 to 2002, and Business Manager for AES Medway Operations Ltd. from 1997 to 2000. Mr. McLaren joined us in 1993. He holds a Master’s in Business Administration from the University of Greenwich Business School in London.

Mark E. Woodruff, 49 years old, is an Executive Vice President of the Company and the Regional President of Asia. Prior to his most recent position, Mr. Woodruff was Vice President of North America Business Development from September 2006 to March 2007 and was Vice President of AES for the North America West region from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Woodruff has held various leadership positions since joining us is 1992. Prior to joining us in 1991, Mr. Woodruff was a Project Manager for Delmarva Capital


Investments, a subsidiary of Delmarva Power & Light Company. Mr. Woodruff holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from the University of Delaware.

Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors includes the following individuals:

Richard Darman, age 64, has been a Director of AES since July 2002. He served as Vice Chairman from December 2002 until May 2003, and was elected Chairman of the Board on May 1, 2003. In addition to his service as Chairman, Mr. Darman serves as Lead Independent Director of the Board. He is a Partner and Managing Director of The Carlyle Group (“Carlyle”), one of the world’s largest private equity firms. He joined Carlyle in February 1993, after serving in the cabinet of the first Bush administration as Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (from 1989 to 1993). Prior to joining the Bush cabinet, he was a Managing Director of Shearson Lehman Brothers, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and Assistant to the President of the United States. He graduated with honors from Harvard College in 1964 and from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration in 1967. He is a Trustee of the publicly traded IXIS Funds and Loomis Sayles Funds, Trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and is Chairman of the Board of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Mr. Darman chairs the Finance and Investment Committee of the Board. Mr. Darman also serves as an ex-officio member of each other committee of the Board.

Paul Hanrahan, age 49, has been a Director of AES since June 2002. At that time he was also appointed President and Chief Executive Officer. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Hanrahan was the Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of AES where he was responsible for business development activities and the operation of multiple electric utilities and generation facilities in Europe, Asia and Latin America. In addition, Mr. Hanrahan was previously the President and Chief Executive Officer of AES China Generating Co. Ltd., a public company formerly listed on NASDAQ. He also managed other AES businesses in the U.S., Europe and Asia. Prior to joining AES, Mr. Hanrahan served as a line officer on a fast attack nuclear submarine, USS Parche (SSN 683). Mr. Hanrahan serves on the Board of Directors of Corn Products International, Inc. He is a graduate of Harvard School of Business and the U.S. Naval Academy.

Kristina M. Johnson, age 50, has been a Director of AES since April 2004. Dr. Johnson is the chief academic and administrative officer of the Edmund T. Pratt, Jr., School of Engineering at Duke University (“Duke”). She joined Duke in July 1999. Prior to joining Duke, Dr. Johnson served on the faculty at the University of Colorado at Boulder, from 1985 1999 as a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and as a co founder and Director (1993 1997) of the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center for Optoelectronic Computing Systems Center. Dr. Johnson received her BS with distinction, MS and PhD from Stanford University in Electrical Engineering. She is an expert in liquid crystal electro optics and has over forty patents or patents pending in this field. Dr. Johnson currently serves on the Boards of Directors of Minerals Technologies, Inc., Boston Scientific, and Nortel Networks. Dr. Johnson serves on the Compensation Committee and the Environment, Safety and Technology Committee of the Board.

John A. Koskinen, age 67, has been a Director of AES since April 2004. Mr. Koskinen is President of the United States Soccer Foundation, a position he has held since June 2004. Previously, Mr. Koskinen served as Deputy Mayor and City Administrator for the District of Columbia from 2000 to 2003. From 2001 to 2004, Mr. Koskinen served as a Director of the U.S. Soccer Foundation and served on the Foundation’s audit committee. Prior to his election as Deputy Mayor, he occupied several positions with the U.S. Government, including service from 1994 through 1997 as Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget. From 1998 to 2000, he served as Assistant to the President (President Clinton) and Chaired the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion. Prior to his most recent service with the U.S. Government, in 1973, Mr. Koskinen joined the Palmieri Company, which specialized in


turnaround management, as Vice President and later served as President and Chief Executive Officer from 1979 through 1993. Mr. Koskinen graduated with a JD, cum laude, from Yale University School of Law and a BA, magna cum laude, in physics from Duke University where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. Koskinen currently serves on the Board of Directors of American Capital Strategies. Mr. Koskinen serves on the Financial Audit Committee and Chairs the Environment, Safety and Technology Committee of the Board.

Philip Lader, age 61, has been a Director of AES since April 2001. The former U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, he is Chairman of WPP Group plc, the global advertising and communications services company which includes J. Walter Thompson, Young & Rubicam, and Ogilvy & Mather. A lawyer, he is also a Senior Advisor to Morgan Stanley, a Director of Lloyd’s of London, WPP Group plc, Rusal and Marathon Oil Corporations, Songbird Estates (Canary Wharf) plc, and a trustee of the RAND Corporation and the Smithsonian Museum of American History. Formerly White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Assistant to the President, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, he also was President of Sea Pines Company, Executive Vice President of the U.S. holdings of the late Sir James Goldsmith, and president of universities in South Carolina and Australia. He was educated at Duke University (BA, Phi Beta Kappa, 1966), the University of Michigan (MA, 1967), Oxford University, and Harvard Law School (JD, 1972). Mr. Lader chairs the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and also serves on the Environment, Safety and Technology Committee of the Board.

John H. McArthur, age 73, has been a Director of AES since January 1997. He is the retired Dean of the Harvard Business School, and has been a private business consultant and active investor in various companies since prior to 1994. He is a member of the Boards of Directors of BCE Inc., Bell Canada, Bell Canada Enterprises, Cabot Corporation, KOC Holdings, A.S. Istanbul, Reuters Founders Share Company, London, and Telesat Canada. Mr. McArthur chairs the Financial Audit Committee and serves on the Finance and Investment Committee of the Board.

Sandra O. Moose, age 65, has been a Director of AES since April 2004. Dr. Moose is President of Strategic Advisory Services and previously was a Senior Vice President of The Boston Consulting Group (“BCG”). She joined BCG in 1968, was a Director since 1975, and a Senior Vice President through 2003. She managed BCG’s New York Office from 1988 1998 and was appointed Chair of the East Coast. Dr. Moose received her PhD and MA in economics from Harvard University and BA summa cum laude in economics from Wheaton College. Dr. Moose serves on the Boards of Directors of Verizon Communications, Rohm and Haas Company, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and IXIS Advisor Funds and Loomis Sayles Funds where she is Chairperson of the Board of Trustees. Dr. Moose serves on the Nominating and Corporate Governance and the Finance and Investment Committees of the Board.

Philip A. Odeen, age 71, has been a Director of AES since May 1, 2003. From October 2006 to the present, Mr. Odeen has served as Non-Executive Chairman for Avaya. He served as Non-Executive Chairman for Reynolds and Reynolds Company from July 2004 until October 2006. Mr. Odeen retired as Chairman of TRW Inc. in December 2002. Prior to joining TRW in 1997, Mr. Odeen was President and Chief Executive Officer of BDM, which TRW acquired in 1997. From 1978 to 1992, Mr. Odeen was a Senior Consulting Partner with Coopers & Lybrand and served as Vice Chairman, management consulting services, from 1991 to 1992. From 1972 to 1978, he was Vice President of the Wilson Sporting Goods Company. Mr. Odeen has served in senior positions with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council staff. Mr. Odeen graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a BA in government from the University of South Dakota. He was a Fulbright Scholar to the United Kingdom and earned a master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin. He is a member of the Boards of Directors of Avaya, Convergys Corporation, and Northrop Grumman Corporation. Mr. Odeen chairs the Compensation Committee and also serves on the Finance and Investment Committee of the Board.

209




Charles O. Rossotti, age 66, has been a Director of AES since March 2003. Mr. Rossotti is a Senior Advisor with the Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest private equity firms. From November 1997 until November 2002, Mr. Rossotti was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Prior to joining the IRS, Mr. Rossotti was a founder of American Management Systems, Inc., where he held the position of President from 1970 1989, Chief Executive Officer from 1981 to 1993 and Chairman from 1989 to 1997. From 1965 to 1969, he held various positions in the Office of Systems Analysis within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Rossotti graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University and received an MBA with high distinction from Harvard Business School. Mr. Rossotti serves on the Boards of Directors of Adesso Systems Corporation, Liquid Engines, Inc., Compusearch Systems, Inc., and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Mr. Rossotti serves on the Financial Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee of the Board.

Sven Sandstrom, age 65, has been a Director of AES since October 2002. He is the former Managing Director of the World Bank, retiring from the Bank in December 2001. He is a member of the Governing Council and Treasurer of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). He co-chairs the funding negotiations for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. He chairs the funding negotiations for the African Development Bank. Mr. Sandstrom serves on the Financial Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board.

AES Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Corporate Governance Guidelines

A Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Ethics Code”) and Corporate Governance Guidelines have been adopted by the Board. The Ethics Code is intended to govern as a requirement of employment the actions of everyone who works at AES, including employees of AES subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ethics Code and the Corporate Governance Guidelines can be located in their entirety on the Company’s web site (www.aes.com). Any person may obtain a copy of the Ethics Code or the Corporate Governance Guidelines without charge by making a written request to: Office of the Corporate Secretary, The AES Corporation, 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. If any amendments to or waivers from the Ethics Code or the Corporate Governance Guidelines are made, we will disclose such amendments or waivers on our website.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Based solely on the Company’s review of reports filed under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and certain written representations (as allowed by Item 405(b)(2)(i) of Regulation S-K), the Company believes that no person subject to Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act with respect to the registrant failed to file on a timely basis the reports required by this ItemSection 16(a) of the Exchange Act during the most recent fiscal year, except for Ms. Freeman, who in April 2006 signed the Annual Report on Form 10-K as the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer and therefore became an Affiliate of the Company but at that time did not file a Form 3. Ms. Freeman has subsequently filed a Form 3.

Financial Audit Committee (the “Audit Committee”)

The Board has a separately designated standing Audit Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and New York Stock Exchange Rule 303A.06. The members of the Audit Committee are John H. McArthur (Chairman), John A. Koskinen, Charles O. Rossotti, and Sven Sandstrom. The Audit Committee is set forthresponsible for the review and oversight of the Company’s performance with respect to its financial responsibilities and the integrity of the Company’s accounting and reporting practices. The Audit Committee, on behalf of the Board, also appoints the Company’s independent auditors, subject to stockholder ratification, at the Annual Meeting. The Audit Committee operates under the Charter of the Financial Audit Committee adopted and approved by the Board. A copy of the charter appears on the Company’s web site (www.aes.com). A copy


of the charter may also be obtained by sending a request to the office of the Corporate Secretary, The AES Corporation, 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Our Board has determined that all members of the Audit Committee are independent within the meaning of the SEC rules and under the current listing standards of the NYSE. Our Board has also determined that each member of the Audit Committee is an Audit Committee Financial Expert within the meaning of the SEC rules based on, among other things, the experience of such member described above. Finally, the Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is “financially literate” as a supplementary item in Part I hereof (pursuant to Instruction 3 to Item 401(b) of Regulation S-K). The other information required by this Item, to the extent not included above, will be containedNYSE. The Audit Committee met eleven (11) times in our Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 11, 2006 and is hereby incorporated by reference.2006.

ITEM 11.          EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

SeeCOMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Executive Compensation Philosophy

In all areas of our business, our policies seek to maximize long-term value for our stockholders. Consistent with this philosophy, we believe that stockholders benefit from compensation policies that attract the highest caliber people and retain and motivate these individuals. The Compensation Committee is responsible for designing, reviewing and administering our executive compensation program (the “Program”). The Program is designed to achieve the following objectives:

·       link executive performance to the achievement of our financial and operational performance objectives;

·       align executive compensation with the interests of our stockholders;

·       support our business plans and company objectives; and

·       optimize our investment in labor costs by maintaining compensation arrangements that not only drive performance but are competitive and are valued by our employees, including the named executive officers.

To achieve these objectives, the Program relies on the following components of total compensation:

·       base salary;

·       cash-based, short-term incentives under our Performance Incentive Plan;

·       cash-based, medium-term incentives under our 2003 Long-Term Compensation Plan (“LTC Plan”) in the form of performance units; and

·       equity-based, long-term incentives under our LTC Plan in the form of restricted stock units and stock options.

The Compensation Committee varies the allocation among these four components of compensation so that the most senior executives in the Company, including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and the three other executive officers and former executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table in this Form 10-K (the “named executive officers”), who have the greatest influence over our performance, are awarded compensation that has a significant portion highly dependent upon Company and individual performance. The Program is also designed to ensure that compensation awards vest in a manner that rewards consistency in performance over time.

We believe that our Program, as currently structured, is consistent with the objectives of our compensation philosophy. However, our philosophy and our Program may evolve over time in response to factors such as market conditions, legal requirements or other factors, including subjective factors not currently known to us.


Targeted Compensation

The Program targets setting overall compensation for each named executive officer in the middle range of total compensation for executives holding comparable positions in both our peer group of companies (the “Peer Group”) and a broad set of similarly sized general industry and energy companies. Our Program and each of its components is benchmarked against compensation programs used by S&P 500 companies, as well as the programs of our Peer Group.

To develop the Peer Group for our 2006 compensation, our senior management generated a list of companies with whom we compete for executive talent in the energy industry. The companies in the Peer Group have executives with backgrounds relevant to our business. The list was reviewed by our outside compensation consultants, who then, based on their review of our industry, suggested changes to the Peer Group which were then discussed with our management. The Peer Group includes CMS Energy, Calpine Corporation, Duke Energy, Dynegy, Edison International, FPL Group, NRG Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric, Reliant Resources, Southern Company, and TXU Energy.

The Compensation Committee determines total compensation in the first quarter of each year based on available data. In 2006, the Compensation Committee reviewed both 2004 proxy statement data for the Peer Group as well as 2005 survey data. The Compensation Committee, with the assistance of our outside compensation consultants, made comparisons with similarly-situated executives in Peer Group companies based upon criteria such as type of position, business unit, career level, geographic region and company size. The Compensation Committee also reviewed survey data supplied by our outside compensation consultants in order to accurately reflect our competition for certain executive positions which do not necessarily require industry-specific experience (such as finance). The Program is designed to target energy industry market data for industry specific positions and the general industry survey data for functional or non-industry-specific positions, to ensure that the Company remains competitive in the markets where we compete for executive talent.

When determining total compensation for each named executive officer, the Compensation Committee reviews “tally sheets,” which demonstrate total compensation for the named executive officers. The tally sheets also review the value of long term compensation assuming different performance outcomes for the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee conducts this analysis looking forward for several years to ensure that compensation paid to the named executive officers is appropriate for these different company performance scenarios. If compensation is not appropriate, the Compensation Committee makes adjustments to the long term compensation awarded to each named executive officer at the time of grant.

Although much of this analysis is based upon market data that provides an objective basis to evaluate our compensation policies, some adjustments are made based on subjective factors such as our views about the external market place, the degree of difficulty of a particular assignment, the individual’s experience, the tenure of the individual in the role, and the individual’s future potential.

Additional information regarding the Compensation Committee’s processes and procedures in determining executive officer compensation, including the role of the Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers, is contained in “Information About our Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee” in this Form 10-K.

Allocation among Components of Compensation

After the overall targeted compensation has been established for each named executive officer, compensation is allocated among base salary and short, middle and long-term incentive compensation so that an executive’s deviation from the median of total compensation, as compared to similarly situated executives in the Peer Group, is determined by individual and company performance. If individual and


company performance exceed the pre-established performance measures, executives are compensated above the median of the Peer Group. Conversely, executives are compensated below the median of the Peer Group if individual and company performance is below the pre-established performance measures. The types of information used to evaluate performance and the data used to determine competitive compensation levels are the same for our named executive officers as they are for our other executive officers.

The importance that the Program places on at-risk, performance-based compensation is shown by the allocation of the target level of overall compensation awarded to the named executive officers for 2006 among the various compensation elements of the Program. For the Chief Executive Officer, the base salary target is 10%-15%, the typical bonus target is 15%-20%, and the typical LTC target is 65%-75%. For the other named executive officers, the base salary target is 20%-25%, the typical bonus target is 15%-20%, and the typical LTC target is 55%-65%.

Compensation for AES Executives

Base Salary

The Program targets base salaries for our named executive officers generally at or below the median of the survey data provided by our compensation consultants. Base salaries reflect current practices within a named executive officer’s specific market and geographic region and among executives holding similar positions in the Peer Group. In addition to these factors, the base salary for a named executive officer could be higher or lower, depending on a number of more subjective factors, including the executive’s experience, the executive’s sustained performance, the need to retain key individuals, recognition of roles that are larger in scope or accountability than standard market position; and market/competitive differences based upon a specific location.

The base salary amounts paid to our named executive officers in 2006 are contained in the “Salary” column of the Summary Compensation Table in this Form 10-K.

Performance Incentive Plan

The Program provides named executive officers with an annual cash incentive to reward short-term individual performance. At the 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, our stockholders approved The AES Corporation Performance Incentive Plan (the “Performance Incentive Plan”), which is available to our US-based employees, including the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee’s specific objectives with the Performance Incentive Plan are to promote the attainment of our significant business objectives; encourage and reward management teamwork across the Company; and assist in the attraction and retention of employees vital to our success.

The Performance Incentive Plan links annual cash incentive payments to performance based on factors that are drivers of our success—including individual, operational, safety, and financial goals—and also reflect annual incentives paid by other companies for comparable positions. Other considerations include an executive’s leadership skills, the difficulty of his or her assignments, and the prospects for retaining the named executive officer. These awards are not guaranteed.


The target annual cash incentive award for each named executive officer is assessed and approved annually and ranges from 80 to 150 percent of base salary, depending on an individual’s specific job responsibilities. The award paid in a previous year is not a factor in determining the current year award. Because the amount of the award actually paid is based on the attainment of Company and individual performance goals, the Performance Incentive Plan payment for a specific named executive officer could be zero or as much as twice the target payment. For 2006, awards for all plan participants (including the named executive officers) were based on the following performance goals:

·       40 percent on meeting cash flow targets;

·       25 percent on meeting performance improvement and cost reduction targets;

·       25 percent on achieving individual objectives; and

·       10 percent on safety performance.

If these performance goals are not fully achieved at year end, the annual awards are paid according to the percentage of the goals that were met. If threshold performance goals are not met, no payment is made. Performance goals may also be exceeded, which could make the payment under the annual award higher than the target. The Compensation Committee has the discretion to reduce the amount of any annual award if it concludes that a reduction is necessary or appropriate. The Compensation Committee cannot increase the amount of any award intended to be performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

The level of achievement of each performance goal is confidential, has not been publicly disclosed, and the Compensation Committee has determined that disclosure of the levels of such goals would cause competitive harm to the Company. When the Compensation Committee set performance goals, the Compensation Committee intended for performance at target to be a challenging, but attainable, goal. The Compensation Committee also believed, at the time the performance goals were set, that performance at a level above the target was achievable but a stretch goal. The threshold, target and maximum pay-out levelsof the Performance Incentive Plan awards for each named executive officer are shown in the “Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards” columns of the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table in this Form 10-K.

2006 Performance Incentive Plan Awards

For 2006, Company performance on cash flow targets was above the target performance level for the Performance Incentive Plan. Specifically, 120% of the 2006 cash flow target was met.

Company performance on performance improvement and cost reductions was below the target performance level for the Performance Incentive Plan. Specifically, 90% of the 2006 performance improvement and cost reduction target was met.

Company performance on safety met the minimum threshold, but was below the target performance level for such measure. Specifically, 80% of the 2006 safety target was met.

Considering these performance results as compared to performance targets, the named executive officers (excluding Barry Sharp who was not eligible to receive a 2006 actual or target bonus) received an average  bonus of 124 % of the 2006 target amount, when consideration for performance of their personal objectives was measured.

For Paul Hanrahan, the CEO, the following accomplishments were considered in determining that 145% of his 2006 individual performance targets were met:

·       The commencement of construction on our 600MW Maritza Coal Fired Power Plant in Bulgaria;


·       The acquisition of Transelect, a domestic transmission development company;

·       The commencement of operations at our 121MW wind generation facility at Buffalo Gap I in Texas;

·       The commencement of construction of 233MW additional wind generation capacity at Buffalo Gap II;

·       The successful secondary equity offering of Gener Stock in Chile;

·       The trend of performance improvement since 2003;

·       The commencement of operations at our 1200MW combined cycle gas turbine facility in Cartagena, Spain; and

·       The implementation of a plan to enhance our finance capability, including significantly increased staffing and improved training.

The Performance Incentive Plan awards paid out to the named executive officers for 2006 are set forth in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 221 of the Form 10-K.

2003 Long-Term Compensation Plan

The AES Corporation 2003 Long-Term Compensation Plan (the “LTC Plan”) is available to all AES employees, including the named executive officers (subject to local labor laws). In 2006, approximately 1,900 AES employees in 17 countries received awards under the LTC Plan.

Cash and equity-based awards under the LTC Plan link individual compensation with long-term value creation and our stock performance. During 2006, the following factors were considered in granting long-term compensation awards to the named executive officers: (1) the level of equity-based compensation paid to executives holding comparable positions in the Peer Group, (2) individual or personal performance and future potential, and (3) Company performance. For 2006, the Program included  a mix of long term incentive awards under the LTC Plan. All 2006 annual grants to named executive officers under the LTC Plan were allocated as follows:

·       50% in the form of Performance Units (“PUs”);

·       25% in the form of Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) (plus a risk related premium of 10% of additional RSUs); and

·       25% in the form of nonqualified Options.

The Compensation Committee has the discretion to amend the terms of any LTC plan award after it has been awarded, but not if such amendment would impair the rights of the holder of the award.

The Program is designed to strike a balance between the objectives of market value creation and underlying economic performance by allocating 50% of LTC Plan in awards which can be settled in stock (RSUs and Options) and 50% of LTC Plan awards in awards which settle in cash (PUs).

2006 LTC Awards

Paul Hanrahan’s LTC Plan grant in February 2006 recognized his long-term contribution to AES and the effectiveness of his leadership. Victoria Harker joined the Company as Chief Financial Officer in January 2006 and received her first LTC Plan award at that time. The award recognized her past experience and potential contributions to AES, and reflected the market for newly appointed chief financial officers of comparable companies. William Luraschi’s LTC Plan award recognized his ongoing contribution to AES and the Company continuity he provides in his executive position. Andres Gluski and


Haresh Jaisinghani, who recently left the Company, were appointed to their executive positions at the beginning of 2006 and their LTC Plan awards reflected their promotion to their new roles and market data for new hires holding comparable positions at companies in the Peer Group.

Information regarding the amounts and values of the LTC Plan awards is contained in the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table in this Form 10-K. A description of the terms of the awards is contained in “Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table” in this Form 10-K.

Performance Units (PUs)

PUs are performance-based awards that reward efficient generation of cash over a rolling three-year period. They use a cash generation metric to measure the net cash we generate by increasing revenue, reducing costs, and improving productivity, which we consider a significant source of stockholder value creation, and which directly links compensation with the performance of our business during the measurement period. The payment made, if any,  under each PU depends upon the level of the PU’s cash generation metric achieved over the three year measurement period.

Since PUs have a three-year performance period, the PUs we granted in 2006 have a measurement period ending in 2008 and, if paid out, will be paid in 2009. The PU payments made for the 2004-2006 performance period, were made under PUs granted in 2004.

The following table illustrates possible payouts under the PUs granted in 2006 to the named executive officers, assuming these PUs fully vest. If less than 90% of the cash generation metric (the “Cash Value Added” or “CVA”) is achieved for the three year measurement period, no payments will be made under these PUs. If CVA levels are achieved at the 90% level, each PU has a value of $0.50; if CVA levels are achieved at greater than 90% and less than 100% of the CVA target, or greater than 100% and less than 120% of the CVA target, the PU payout will be determined based on a straight-line interpolation, subject to a maximum value of $2.00 per unit. There is no increase in PU payments above the maximum value per unit if the CVA level is above 120%.

VALUE OF PERFORMANCE UNITS BASED ON 2006 CASH VALUE ADDED TARGET

Name & Principal Position

 

 

 

Below 90% of
Performance
Target

 

Equal to 90% of
Performance Target

 

Equal to 100% of
Performance
Target

 

Equal or greater than
120% of Performance
Target

 

Paul Hanrahan, CEO

 

 

$

0

 

 

$1,200,000

 

$2,400,000

 

$4,800,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2,400,000 units ´ $0.50)

 

(2,400,000 units ´ $1.00)

 

(2,400,000 units ´ $2.00)

 

Victoria Harker, EVP & CFO

 

 

$

0

 

 

$281,000

 

$562,500

 

$1,125,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(562,500 units ´ $0.50)

 

(562,500 units ´ $1.00)

 

(562,500 units ´ $2.00)

 

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

 

$

0

 

 

$375,000

 

$750,000

 

$1,500,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

(750,000 units $0.50)

 

(750,000 units ´ $1.00)

 

(750,000 units ´ $2.00)

 

Andres R. Gluski, EVP and COO

 

 

$

0

 

 

$318,750

 

$637,500

 

$1,275,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(637,500 units ´ $0.50)

 

(637,500 units ´ $1.00)

 

(637,500 units ´ $2.00)

 

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP

 

 

$

0

 

 

$325,000

 

$650,000

 

$1,300,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

(650,000 units ´ $0.50)

 

(650,000 units ´ $1.00)

 

(650,000 units ´ $2.00)

 

216




Although the targeted CVA during the specific three year performance period is determined at the time the PU is granted, pre-established adjustments may be made to the CVA target based on changes to the Company’s portfolio, such as an asset divestiture or sale of a portion of equity in a subsidiary. In addition, an external financial consultant is engaged at the end of each year to assist management and the Compensation Committee in calculating CVA. The target level of CVA for the PUs granted in 2006 is confidential, has not been publicly disclosed, and the Compensation Committee has determined that disclosure of its target level would cause competitive harm to the Company. At the time the Compensation Committee established the 2006 PU awards, the Compensation Committee intended for performance at the target level to be a challenging, but attainable, goal.  It is our policy to grant PUs during the first quarter of each year at the Compensation Committee’s first regularly scheduled meeting for the year. We may also grant PUs to an executive officer at the time he or she is hired or promoted to his or her position of an executive officer.

Payout of PU Awards Granted in 2004

The PUs granted in 2004 reached maturity at the end of 2006 and vested PUs were paid to participants in March 2007. The payout was based on our performance during the three-year period of 2004-2006. During that period, the Company’s performance against its CVA target was above  the predetermined target. Therefore, payout of these units was at $1.1076 per unit, slightly above the initial value of 1.00 per unit.

The payment of the 2004 PU awards is reflected in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table in this Form 10-K.

Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)

A restricted stock unit represents the right to receive a single share of AES common stock or cash of equivalent fair market value. The RSUs granted to the named executive officers in 2006 will vest in equal installments over a three year period commencing on the first anniversary of the grant date if: (i) the executive continues to be employed by AES on each such date; and (ii) (A) the total stockholder return (“TSR”) of AES, measured by the appreciation in stock price and dividends paid, exceeds the TSR of the S&P 500 Index for the three-year vesting period, or (B) the TSR of AES is positive, the S&P 500 Index is positive, and the TSR of AES is within 5 percent of the TSR of the S&P 500 Index (subject to the Compensation Committee’s discretion to choose that the RSUs should not vest in such circumstance). Once RSUs vest, a named executive officer must continue to hold the RSUs for an additional two years before the named executive officer receives stock or cash for the RSUs.

It is our policy to grant RSUs during the first quarter of each year at the Compensation Committee’s first regularly scheduled meeting for the year. We may also grant RSUs to an executive officer at the time he or she is hired or promoted to his or her position as an executive officer.

Payout of 2004 RSU Awards

The first grant of RSU awards under the LTC Plan vested at the end of 2006 as our TSR exceeded the TSR of the S&P 500 over the 2004-2006 measurement period. Our TSR was 133%, while the TSR of the S&P 500 Index was 28%. Payout of these RSUs will be made as soon as administratively practicable in 2009.

Vesting of the 2004 RSU awards is reflected in the Option Exercises and Stock Vested table in this Form 10-K and additional information regarding the awards is set forth in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table (and its accompanying narrative) in this Form 10-K.


Stock Options

An Option represents an individual’s right to purchase shares of AES common stock at a fixed exercise price after the option vests. An Option only has value if our stock price exceeds the exercise price of the stock option after it vests. Options vest in equal installments over a three year period commencing on the first anniversary of the date the Option is granted, provided that the named executive officer continues to be employed by AES on such date. Options may also be used in specific cases, such as in recruiting an executive and to attract high caliber people. For example, on January 23, 2006, the Board provided our Chief Financial Officer with a sign-on LTC Plan Option grant. The grant was valued using the closing market price of our stock on January 23, 2006.

It is our policy to grant Options to our executive officers during the first quarter of each year at the Compensation Committee’s first regularly scheduled meeting for the year. We may also grant Options to an executive officer at the time he or she is hired or promoted to his or her  position as an executive officer. It is our policy to grant Options to our executive officers at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock (e.g., the closing price) on the day of the Board meeting at which the recommendation of the Compensation Committee are approved. In the case of Options granted at the time of hire or promotion, it is our policy to grant them at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on the grant date. All Options granted to our named executive officers in 2006 adhered to these policies.

In connection with an internal accounting review of share-based long term compensation, we reviewed our historical practices with respect to the award of share-based long term compensation and determined that not all of our past awards to our executive officers complied with these policies. The review determined that with respect to annual grants made in the 1999 to 2001 period, the exercise price was based on the lowest prices during the four day period during which the Compensation Committee meetings were held.

In 2003, AES became an early adopter of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, which requires that companies account for the cost of Options. Historically, AES used Black-Scholes to determine the value of stock options. In 2006, the Board determined that a forward looking market approach is the most appropriate method for determining the volatility used in the Black Scholes calculation. The Company now accounts for share-based compensation under Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R.

Perquisites and Other Benefits

Consistent with the Program’s objectives, the named executive officers are eligible to participate in company-sponsored health and welfare benefit and retirement programs to the same extent as other non union U.S. employees, other than the Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan. The Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan provides supplemental retirement benefits to our eligible named executive officers and other AES individuals to make up for the fact that participant and company contributions under our 401(k) retirement plan are limited due to restrictions imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

The Program generally does not rely on perquisites to achieve its objectives. However, we have a corporate apartment near our Arlington, Virginia  headquarters, which is available to certain AES employees. In addition, our Chief Executive Officer is entitled to use a driver and company vehicle. Each perquisite is treated as taxable income to the beneficiaries.

Information regarding the value of the perquisites AES provided to its named executive officers in 2006 is contained in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table. Additional information regarding the Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan is contained in “Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table.”


Severance and Change in Control Arrangements

Under the Program, reasonable “change in control” and severance benefits are provided to our named executive officers and certain other employees. In the case of our named executive officers, the Compensation Committee believes these benefits reflect the competitive marketplace for executive talent and are in line with similar arrangements of companies with executives in comparable positions. Our change in control and severance benefit arrangements with the named executive officers and certain other employees recognize that our employees have built AES into the successful enterprise it is today.

The purpose of these change in control arrangements is to:

·       ensure that the actions and recommendations of our senior management with respect to a possible or actual change in control are in the best interests of AES and its stockholders, and are not influenced by their own personal interests concerning their continued employment status after the change in control; and

·       reduce the distraction regarding the impact of an actual or potential change in control on the personal situation of the named executive officers and other employees.

The Board,upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, approved employment agreements with our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and, in 2006, adopted a new Severance Plan, which defined the severance benefits for our US-based, non-union employees who have completed one year of service. Since they have employment agreements, Mr. Hanrahan and Ms. Harker do not participate in the Severance Plan. Additionally, the PU, RSU and Option award agreements also contain change in control provisions.

More detailed information about the employment agreements, Severance Plan and award agreements is contained in “Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table” in this Form 10-K and “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” in this Form 10-K.

Employment Agreements

For competitive reasons, the Compensation Committee determined that the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer should have employment agreements. Each of these agreements is in line with the Program’s compensation guidelines. The agreements provide, among other matters, that if we terminate an executive’s employment without “cause” or the executive terminates his employment for “good reason,” the executive will be entitled to the sum of his or her annual base salary and target bonus for the year of employment termination multiplied by a factor (of two, in the case of our Chief Executive Officer, and of one, in the case of our Chief Financial Officer). If we terminate an executive’s employment without cause or the executive terminates for good reason within two years following a change in control, the executive will receive, among other payments and benefits, the sum of annual base salary and target bonus for the year of employment termination multiplied by a factor (of three, in the case of our Chief Executive Officer and of two, in the case of our Chief Financial Officer). To protect our business interests, each of the agreements further provides that AES will not be required to make any payments under those circumstances until the executive executes a release of claims against AES. The definitions of “cause”, “good reason” and “change in control” are contained in “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” in this Form 10-K.

Additionally, the employment agreements contain confidentiality, and two-year non-competition and non-solicitation provisions to protect our business interests by preventing these executives from disrupting our business, by competing, soliciting our employees or customers, or disparaging AES during employment and post-employment.


Severance Plan

The Severance Plan provides the named executive officers (other than our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) and other eligible employees with payments and benefits, including certain tax reimbursements and gross up benefits, in the event their employment is involuntarily terminated under certain circumstances. In such cases, particpants in the Severance Plan are entitled to, among other payments and benefits, one year’s annual base salary plus the target bonus for the year of employment termination. An action by AES is required for a person to be involuntarily terminated under the plan. Additionally, participating named executive officers are entitled to severance benefits in the event of a change in control if they are not offered continued employment in similar positions following a change in control. To protect our business interests, the Severance Plan further provides that no payments or benefits will be made thereunder until the terminated employee executes a written release of claims against us. At our discretion, such release may also contain such non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions as we may consider necessary or appropriate.

Vesting of Awards Upon Change in Control

Consistent with the stockholder-approved LTC Plan, the Compensation Committee determined to include change in control provisions in each of the PU, RSU and Option award agreements. Upon a “change in control,” the unvested portion of the PUs, RSUs, and Options will vest. The purpose of this accelerated vesting is to ensure that we retain our key executives prior to and up to the change in control.

Tax Deductibility of Pay

The Compensation Committee has considered the impact of the applicable tax laws with respect to compensation paid under our plans, arrangements and agreements. In certain instances, applicable tax laws impose potential penalties on such compensation and/or result in a loss of deduction to AES for such compensation.

The tax objectives and policies described below are subject to change by the Compensation Committee, generally or in specific instances.

Section 409A

Participation in, and compensation paid under, our plans, arrangements and agreements may, in certain instances, result in the deferral of compensation that is subject to the requirements of Section 409A of the Code. To date, the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service have issued only preliminary guidance regarding the impact of Section 409A of the Code on AES’s plans, arrangements and agreements. Generally, to the extent that our plans, arrangements and agreements fail to meet certain requirements under Section 409A of the Code, compensation earned thereunder may be subject to immediate taxation and tax penalties. We intend our plans, arrangements and agreements to be structured and administered in a manner that complies with Section 409A of the Code.

Section 162(m)

With certain exceptions, Section 162(m) of the Code limits our deduction for compensation in excess of $1 million paid to certain covered employees (generally our Chief Executive Officer and four next highest-paid executive officers). Compensation paid to covered employees is not subject to the deduction limitation if it is considered “qualified performance-based compensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code. While the Compensation Committee considers the tax impact of any compensation arrangement, the Compensation Committee evaluates such impact in light of overall compensation objectives of the Program. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee may approve non-deductible compensation if the Compensation Committee believes it is in the best interests of our


stockholders. Additionally, if any provision of a plan or award that is intended to be performance-based under Section 162(m) of the Code, is later found to not satisfy the conditions of Section 162(m), our ability to deduct such compensation may be limited.

Change in Control Tax Gross-Up

If a change in control of AES causes compensation, including performance-based compensation such as Performance Incentive Plan or LTC Plan awards, to be paid or result in accelerating the vesting, a disqualified individual could, in some cases, be considered to have received “parachute payments” within the meaning of Section 280G and Section 4999 of the Code. Pursuant to Section 4999, a disqualified individual can be subject to a 20% excise tax on excess parachute payments. Similarly, under Section 280G of the Code, AES can be denied a deduction for excess parachute payments. The employment agreements with our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and our Severance Plan provide that, if it is determined that any payment or distribution by AES to or for the executive’s benefit would constitute an “excess parachute payment,” AES will pay to the disqualified person a gross-up payment, so that the net amount retained by the disqualified person, after deduction of any excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code and other taxes, will be equal to the payments or distribution we were required to make. Gross-up payments will not be deductible by AES. We included these gross-up provisions in each of the employment agreements and in the Severance Plan after a review of market practices.

REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with AES’s management and, based on this review and discussion, recommended to the Board that it be included in AES’s proxy statement and incorporated into AES’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors

Philip A. Odeen, Chair
Kristina M. Johnson
Charles O. Rossotti

Information About our Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee consists of three (3) members of the Board who are “Non-Employee Directors” as defined under Rule 16b-3 of the Exchange Act. The members of the Compensation Committee are Kristina M. Johnson, Philip A. Odeen (Chairman), and Charles O. Rossotti. The Board has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee meets the standards of independence established by the NYSE.

The Compensation Committee’s principal responsibility is to design and administer AES’s executive compensation program in order to attract and retain outstanding people. The Compensation Committee establishes rates of salary, bonuses, profit sharing contributions, grants of stock options, restricted stock units, performance units, retirement and other compensation for our officers and for such other employees as the Board may designate. The Compensation Committee also evaluates the performance of our executive officers, including the Chief Executive Officer.

221




At the commencement of each year, AES’s executive officers prepare a list of their position specific goals and objectives for the upcoming year which, in the case of all executive officers (other than our Chief Executive Officer), are submitted to the Chief Executive Officer for his review and comment. In the case of our Chief Executive Officer, he submits his goals and objectives for the upcoming year to the Compensation Committee. In the first quarter of the following year, the Chief Executive Officer performs an assessment of each executive officer’s performance against their stated goals and, in the case of our Chief Executive Officer, our Compensation Committee reviews and assesses his performance against his stated goals and objectives.

Based on our Chief Executive Officer’s performance, the Compensation Committee, together with the non-executive Chairman of the Board, prepares the initial evaluation and compensation recommendation for the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation, which the Board considers when it determines his compensation. The Compensation Committee reviews and discusses initial evaluations submitted by the Chief Executive Officer on the other named executive officers and then recommends approval to the Board of their respective compensation arrangements.

Additionally, the Compensation Committee makes recommendations to the Board to modify AES’s compensation and benefit programs if it believes that such programs are not consistent with Company compensation goals. Under the Compensation Committee’s Charter, it may form subcommittees and delegate to such subcommittees such power and authority as the Compensation Committee deems appropriate in accordance with the Charter. The Compensation Committee has also delegated to the Chief Executive Officer, subject to review by the Compensation Committee and the Board, the power to set compensation for non-executive officers. Under the LTC Plan, the Compensation Committee is also permitted to delegate its authority, responsibilities and powers to any person selected by it and has expressly authorized our Chief Executive Officer to make equity grants to non-executive officers in compliance with law. In 2006, our Chief Executive Officer made grants of options to purchase 61,397 shares, in the aggregate, to such employees.

The Compensation Committee in conjunction with management regularly retains independent consultants to assist in the development of the information and analytical tools necessary for the conduct of the Committee’s business. These consultants help the committee determine the Peer Group and provide compensation information about those companies. They also review the competitiveness of the Program, provide information on emerging compensation practices, ensure compliance with compensation laws and verify the processes used to determine the value of our long-term compensation. Towers Perrin is the principal firm retained by our management for these purposes.

The Compensation Committee has instructed the Executive Vice President of Business Excellence to provide information to the Committee required for developing compensation programs and determining executive compensation. The Committee may meet with the external consultants at any time; the Executive Vice President of Business Excellence directly interfaces with our external consultants in the preparation of the background material for the committee. In 2006, Towers Perrin provided market data that supported the implementation of the AES Corporation Severance Policy. Towers Perrin met directly with the Committee, and provided it with benchmark information on the “tally sheets” of the named executive officers, as well as our overall compensation programs.

The compensation of our Directors is established by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Summary Compensation Table (2006)

The following Summary Compensation Table contains information concerning the compensation we provided in 2006 to Paul T. Hanrahan, our principal executive officer, Victoria Harker, our principal financial officer, our next three most highly compensated executive officers for 2006 and our former


principal financial officer who left his executive position prior to the end of 2006 (collectively, our “named executive officers”).

Name &
Principal Position

 

 

 

Year

 

Salary
($)(2)

 

Bonus
($)*

 

Stock
Awards
($)(3)

 

Option
Awards
($)(4)

 

Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(5)

 

Change in
Pension
Value &
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings
($)(6)*

 

All Other
Compensation
($)(7)

 

Total
($)

 

Paul Hanrahan,
CEO

 

2006

 

$

897,667

 

 

 

$

1,084,746

 

$

936,120

 

 

$

4,049,800

 

 

 

 

 

$

228,228

 

 

$

7,196,561

 

Victoria Harker, EVP & CFO

 

2006

 

$

481,250

 

 

 

$

60,739

 

$

43,827

 

 

$

532,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

1,106,429

 

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

2006

 

$

472,500

 

 

 

$

672,838

 

$

306,067

 

 

$

1,462,900

 

 

 

 

 

$

90,000

 

 

$

3,004,305

 

Andres R. Gluski, EVP & COO

 

2006

 

$

441,667

 

 

 

$

178,998

 

$

162,741

 

 

$

958,580

 

 

 

 

 

$

47,458

 

 

$

1,789,444

 

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP

 

2006

 

$

423,333

 

 

 

$

167,974

 

$

153,886

 

 

$

942,676

 

 

 

 

 

$

63,033

 

 

$

1,550,902

 

Barry J. Sharp, Former EVP and CFO(1)

 

2006

 

$

267,502

 

 

 

$

341,457

 

$

266,971

 

 

$

1,010,685

 

 

 

 

 

$

94,117

 

 

$

1,980,732

 


*       Column left blank intentionally

NOTES:

(1)Mr. Sharp served as an Executive Vice President and our Chief Financial Officer until January 20, 2006. On January 23, 2006, Ms. Harker was appointed as our Chief Financial Officer. After stepping down as Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Sharp has continued as a part-time employee of AES and reports to our current Chief Financial Officer. AES determined that Mr. Sharp’s experience and knowledge would be beneficial during a period of transition.

(2)The base salary earned by each executive during fiscal year 2006.

(3)These amounts relate to Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) granted in 2006 and prior years. The values set forth in this column are based on the amounts recognized for financial statement reporting purposes in 2006 computed in accordance with FAS 123R (disregarding any estimates of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions). A discussion of the relevant assumptions made in the evaluation may be found in our financial statements, footnotes to the financial statements, or Management’s Discussion & Analysis, as appropriate, contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (“AES’s Form 10-K”).

(4)These amounts relate to Options granted in 2006 and prior years. The values set forth in this column are based on the amounts recognized for financial statement reporting purposes in 2006 computed in accordance with FAS 123R (disregarding any estimates of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions). A discussion of the relevant assumptions made in the evaluation may be found in our financial statements, footnotes to the financial statements, or Management’s Discussion & Analysis, as appropriate, contained in AES’s Form 10-K.

(5)The value of all non-equity incentive plan awards earned during the 2006 fiscal year and paid during the first quarter of 2007, which includes awards earned under our Performance Incentive Plan (our annual incentive plan) and awards earned for the three year performance period ending December 31, 2006 for our cash-based, Performance Units (PUs) granted under our LTC Plan. The following chart shows the breakdown of awards under these two plans for each executive.

Name

 

 

 

2006 Annual
Incentive
Plan Award

 

2004-2006
Performance

 

Paul Hanrahan, CEO

 

 

$

1,557,700

 

 

 

$

2,492,100

 

 

Victoria Harker, EVP & CFO

 

 

$

532,000

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

 

$

632,200

 

 

 

$

832,700

 

 

Andres R. Gluski, EVP & COO

 

 

$

626,300

 

 

 

$

332,280

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP

 

 

$

454,700

 

 

 

$

281,976

 

 

Barry J. Sharp, Former EVP and CFO

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

1,010,685

 

 


(6)    We do not have a defined-benefit pension plan. Although our executives are eligible to participate in nonqualified deferred compensation plans, we do not provide any above-market and/or preferential earnings on deferred compensation. Therefore, no amounts are reportable in this Column. Aggregate earnings on deferred compensation are reported in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table of the Form 10-K.

(7)We provide certain other forms of compensation including an automobile and driver perquisite for Mr. Hanrahan and Company contributions to qualified and nonqualified defined contribution retirement plans. The annual automobile and driver perquisite provided to Mr. Hanrahan had a value of $14,035 in fiscal year 2006, based on our incremental cost to provide the automobile. Mr. Hanrahan has the use of a corporate, leased car and a driver. The incremental cost to Mr. Hanrahan’s personal use of the automobile and driver is calculated as a portion of the cost of the annual lease and drive attributable to his personal  use. The following chart shows the value of our contributions to qualified and nonqualified defined contribution plans for each executive.

Name

 

 

 

AES Contributions to
Qualified and Nonqualified
Defined Contribution Plans

 

Paul Hanrahan, CEO

 

 

$

214,193

 

 

Victoria Harker, EVP & CFO

 

 

$

0

 

 

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

 

$

90,000

 

 

Andres R. Gluski, EVP & COO

 

 

$

47,458

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP

 

 

$

63,033

 

 

Barry J. Sharp, Former EVP and CFO

 

 

$

94,117

 

 

Grants of Plan-Based Awards (2006)

The following table contains information concerning each grant of an award we made under our plans in 2006 to the named executive officers

 

 

 

Estimated Future Payouts Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)

 

Estimated Future Payouts
Under Equity Incentive
Plan Awards(2)

 

All Other
Stock
Awards:
Number
of Shares
of Stock

 

All Other
Option
Awards:
Number of
Securities

 

Exercise
or Base
Price of
Option

 

Grant
Date Fair
Value of
Stock and
Option

 

Name

 

 

 

Grant
Date

 

Threshold
($)

 

Target
($)

 

Maximum
($)

 

Threshold*
($)

 

Target
($)

 

Maximum
($)

 

or Units*
(#)

 

Underlying
Options (#)

 

Awards
($ / Sh)

 

Awards
(3)(4) ($)

 

Paul Hanrahan

 

 

 

$

677,250

 

$

1,354,500

 

$

2,709,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

$

1,200,000

 

$

2,400,000

 

$

4,800,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152,672

 

 

 

$

17.58

 

 

$

1,032,063

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75,085

 

 

75,085

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

935,084

 

Victoria Harker

 

 

 

$

200,000

 

$

400,000

 

$

800,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 Jan 2006

 

$

281,250

 

$

562,500

 

$

1,125,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 Jan 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23,340

 

 

 

$

17.62

 

 

$

158,712

 

 

 

23 Jan 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17,558

 

 

17,558

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

199,235

 

William R. Luraschi

 

 

 

$

249,375

 

$

498,750

 

$

997,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

$

375,000

 

$

750,000

 

$

1,500,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47,710

 

 

 

$

17.58

 

 

$

322,520

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23,464

 

 

23,464

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

292,213

 

Andres R. Gluski

 

 

 

$

222,500

 

$

445,000

 

$

890,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

$

318,750

 

$

637,500

 

$

1,275,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40,553

 

 

 

$

17.58

 

 

$

274,138

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19,945

 

 

19,945

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

248,388

 

Haresh
Jaisinghani

 

 

 

$

215,000

 

$

430,000

 

$

860,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

$

325,000

 

$

650,000

 

$

1,300,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41,349

 

 

 

$

17.58

 

 

$

279,519

 

 

24 Feb 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20,336

 

 

20,336

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

253,258

 

Barry J. Sharp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


*           Column left blank intentionally


NOTES:

(1)Each named executive officer (other than Mr. Sharp) received two types of non-equity incentive plan awards in 2006: awards under the captions “CompensationPerformance Incentive Plan (our annual incentive plan) and Performance Units (PUs) awarded under our LTC Plan. The first row of Executive Officers”data for each named executive officer shows the threshold, target and “Compensation of Directors”maximum award under the Performance Incentive Plan and the second row shows the threshold, target and maximum award under the awarded PUs.

For the Performance Incentive Plan, the threshold award is 50% of the Proxy Statementtarget award, and the maximum award is 200% of the target award. The extent to which awards are payable depends upon AES’ performance against goals established in the first quarter of the fiscal year. This award was paid in the first quarter of 2007.

For the PUs granted under our LTC Plan, the threshold, target and maximum amounts represent the number of units multiplied by their value of $1.00. The threshold number is 50% of the target number of units and the maximum number is 200% of the target number of units.

(2)Each named executive officer (other than Mr. Sharp) received Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) which vest based on two conditions, one of which is performance-based and another which is time-based. The performance-based condition is based on our total stockholder return as compared to the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 for the three year period ending December 31, 2008 (as more fully described in the “Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table”). Assuming this condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. There is no opportunity to earn more than the RSUs granted on February 24, 2006. If the performance-based condition is not achieved, all shares will be forfeited effective December 31, 2008.

Upon vesting, settlement of RSUs is automatically deferred for a two-year period.

(3)The grant date fair value amounts are calculated in accordance with FAS 123R for the Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and Options awarded in 2006 (disregarding any estimates of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions). A discussion of the relevant assumptions made in the valuations may be found in our financial statements, footnotes to the financial statements, or Management’s Discussion &Analysis, as appropriate, contained in AES’s Form 10-K.

Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table

Employment Agreements

We have individual employment agreements with Mr. Hanrahan and Ms. Harker (the “Employment Agreements”). The amount set forth for each of these executives in the “Salary” column of the Summary Compensation Table was paid to him or her under the terms of his or her Employment Agreement.

Each of the Employment Agreements are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007, but will automatically renew for an additional one year period on January 1, 2008 and on each subsequent January 1, unless either we or the executive gives a notice of non-renewal at least six (6) months prior to the renewal date. Each of the Employment Agreements provides the executive with a base salary that may be increased, but not decreased. In 2006, the base salary for Mr. Hanrahan was $903,000 and the base salary for Ms. Harker was $500,000. Under the terms of the Employment Agreements, Mr. Hanrahan also is eligible for an annual bonus with a target of 150% of his base salary and Ms. Harker is eligible for an annual bonus with a target of 80% of her base salary. The annual bonus amounts are to be paid based on achievement of corporate performance goals and/or other conditions that are established by the Compensation Committee and which are generally applicable to other senior executive officers. The Employment Agreements also provide each executive with the right to participate in all of our long-term compensation plans and employee benefit plans on a basis no less favorable than our other senior executive officers.

The Employment Agreements provide Mr. Hanrahan and Ms. Harker with the right to receive certain payments and to continue to receive certain benefits after the termination of their employment. These events and the related payments and benefits are described in “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” in this Form 10-K.

225




Performance Incentive Plan

In the first quarter of 2007, we made cash payments to each of the named executive officers under the Performance Incentive Plan for performance during 2006. The amount paid to each executive is included in the amounts reported in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table for such executive and is identified in footnote 5 to that table.

The Performance Incentive Plan provides annual cash incentives to key employees with significant responsibility for achieving performance goals critical to our success. The target cash incentive payment for each executive and the performance goals for the payment are established on an annual basis. Each of our named executive officers has a specific cash incentive target expressed as a percentage of his or her annual base salary. The targets for our named executive officers for 2006 ranged from 70 percent to 150 percent, depending on the executive’s specific job responsibilities.

The actual cash payments made under the Performance Incentive Plan are based upon the realization of the performance goals established for the year and range from a threshold of 50 percent of the targeted cash payment to a maximum of 200 percent of that targeted cash payment. The threshold, target, and maximum cash incentive payments for 2006 performance for each of our named executive officers is contained in the “Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan” columns in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table.

After the end of each year, the Compensation Committee determines the extent to which the performance goals and any other material terms for such year have been achieved. Payments are then made on the basis of the Compensation Committee’s determination (it being our intention to make such payments on or before March 15 of such calendar year in order to qualify for the short-term deferral exception under Section 409A of the Code).

The Compensation Committee determined that the performance goals for each of the named executive officers for 2006 were satisfied and that each named executive officer was entitled to receive the targeted amount for him or her under the Performance Incentive Plan.

2003 Long Term Compensation Plan

The Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards table include amounts relating to Performance Units (PUs), Restricted Stock Units (RSUs), and Stock Options (Options) granted under the LTC Plan.

Performance Units

The amount reported in the “Non-Equity Plan Incentive Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table for each executive includes amounts paid in the first quarter of 2007 for PUs awarded in 2004. The amount paid to each executive is set forth in footnote 5 to that table. The amounts paid were based on our realization of the Cash Value Added required by the 2004 PU awards for the three year period ended December 31, 2006.

Cash Value Added is our subsidiary operating cash flow less a charge for capital used during the three year period, as determined by the Compensation Committee at the time a PU is granted. Adjustments to the Cash Value Added set forth in any PU may be made based on changes to our portfolio, such as an asset divestiture or sale of a portion of our equity interest in a subsidiary.

The PUs vest in equal installments over a three year period. The payments made with respect to PUs are based on the realization of the Cash Value Added set forth in the PU award. If the Cash Value Added is less than 90% of the performance target, no payment is made. If the Cash Value Added is 90 percent, each PU has a value of $0.50. If the Cash Value Added is greater than 90 percent and less than 100


percent, and greater than 100 percent and less than 120% of the performance target, the value of each PU is based upon straight-line interpolation, subject to a maximum value of $2.00 per PU.

During the three year period ended December 31, 2006, the Cash Value Added exceeded the target for Cash Value Added set forth in each executive’s 2004 Performance Units. As a result, the payment made to each executive was $1.1076 per unit.

The Summary Compensation Table does not include any amounts payable in the future under Performance Units awarded in years after 2004.

Restricted Stock Units

The amount reported in the “Stock Awards” column of the Summary Compensation Table for each executive is based upon the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes for the year ended December 31, 2006 of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) held by the executive, including RSUs granted in prior years.

Each RSU is awarded pursuant to the terms of a Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement and represents the right to receive a single share of our common stock. Each RSU award vests in equal installments on each anniversary of the award over a three year period if (1) the executive continues to be employed by us on such date and (2) either (A) our total stockholder return (“TSR”) exceeds the TSR of the S&P 500 Index for the three year vesting period, or (B) our TSR is positive, the S&P 500 Index is positive, and our TSR is within five percent of the TSR of the S&P 500 Index, in each case for the three year vesting period (provided that the Compensation Committee does not exercise the discretion it has in such circumstances to prevent the RSUs from vesting). Once RSUs are vested, the executive must continue holding them for an additional two years before they are paid out. The Compensation Committee has the discretion to direct the payment of the RSUs to be paid in cash, based on the fair market value of our shares on the delivery date.

The grant date fair value of the RSUs awarded in 2006 is included in the amounts reported under the “Grant Date Fair Value of Awards” column of the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table.

Options

The amount reported in the “Option Awards” column of the Summary Compensation Table for each executive is based upon the dollar amount recognized for financial reporting purposes for the year ended December 31, 2006 of Options held by the executive, including Options granted in prior years pursuant to our LTC Plan and prior plans. Each Option is awarded pursuant to the terms of an option agreement and represents the right to purchase a share of our common stock at a fixed exercise price after the Option vests. Each Option vests in equal installments on each anniversary of the award over a three year period, provided the executive continues to be employed by us on that date.

Effect of Termination of Employment or Change in Control

The vesting of Performance Units, Restricted Stock Units, and Options and the ability of the named executive officers to exercise or receive payments under those awards are affected by a termination of their employment and by a change in control. These events and the related payments and benefits are described in “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” in this Form 10-K.


Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End (2006)

The following table contains information concerning all unexercised options and stock awards granted to the named executive officers which have not vested and which were outstanding on December 31, 2006.

 

 

Option Awards

 

Stock Awards*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:

 

 

Name

 

 

 

Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Excercisable

 

Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Unexercisable

 

Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned
Options (#)

 

Option
Exercise
Price ($)

 

Option
Expiration
Date 
(day / mo /
year)

 

Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested (#)

 

Market
Value
of Shares or
Units of
Stock
That Have
Not Vested
($)

 

Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other Rights
That Have
Not Vested
(#)

 

Market or
Payout
Value of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other Rights
That Have
Not Vested
($)

 

 

Paul Hanrahan

 

 

28,888

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

17.1250

 

 

2 Feb 09

 

 

 

45,987

(16)

 

 

$

1,013,546

 

 

 

148,701

(21)

 

 

$

3,277,370

 

 

 

 

 

19,790

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

36.3150

 

 

4 Feb 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48,571

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

55.6100

 

 

31 Jan 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

304,823

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

13.1900

 

 

25 Oct 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

643,648

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

2.8300

 

 

12 Feb 13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87,770

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

2.8300

 

 

1 May 13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112,444

(1)

 

 

56,222

(1)

 

 

 

$

8.9700

 

 

4 Feb 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32,666

(2)

 

 

65,331

(2)

 

 

 

$

16.8100

 

 

25 Feb 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

152,672

(3)

 

 

 

$

17.5800

 

 

24 Feb 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria Harker

 

 

0

 

 

 

23,340

(4)

 

 

 

$

17.6200

 

 

23 Jan 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17,558

(22)

 

 

$

386,978

 

 

William R. Luraschi

 

 

14,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

19.5000

 

 

3 Dec 07

 

 

 

54,715

(17)

 

 

$

1,205,919

 

 

 

48,003

(23)

 

 

$

1,057,986

 

 

 

 

 

14,666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

17.1250

 

 

2 Feb 09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14,738

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

36.3150

 

 

4 Feb 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12,286

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

55.6100

 

 

31 Jan 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92,028

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

13.1900

 

 

25 Oct 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37,481

(5)

 

 

18,741

(5)

 

 

 

$

8.9700

 

 

4 Feb 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10,889

(6)

 

 

21,777

(6)

 

 

 

$

16.8100

 

 

25 Feb 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

47,710

(7)

 

 

 

$

17.5800

 

 

24 Feb 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andres R. Gluski

 

 

5,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

45.6520

 

 

30 Jun 10

 

 

 

6,132

(18)

 

 

$

135,142

 

 

 

29,760

(24)

 

 

$

655,910

 

 

 

 

 

7,143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

55.6100

 

 

31 Jan 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30,696

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

13.1900

 

 

25 Oct 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14,993

(8)

 

 

7,496

(8)

 

 

 

$

8.9700

 

 

04 Feb 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4,356

(9)

 

 

8,710

(9)

 

 

 

$

16.8100

 

 

25 Feb 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

40,553

(10)

 

 

 

$

17.5800

 

 

24 Feb 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani

 

 

3,634

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

36.3125

 

 

4 Feb 10

 

 

 

5,314

(19)

 

 

$

117,121

 

 

 

29, 252

(25)

 

 

$

644,714

 

 

 

 

 

9,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

55.6100

 

 

31 Jan 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13,461

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

13.1900

 

 

25 Oct 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10,392

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

2.8300

 

 

12 Feb 13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

6,497

(11)

 

 

 

$

8.9700

 

 

4 Feb 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3,956

(12)

 

 

7,912

(12)

 

 

 

$

16.8100

 

 

25 Feb 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

41,349

(13)

 

 

 

$

17.5800

 

 

24 Feb 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry J. Sharp

 

 

27,084

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

19.5000

 

 

3 Dec 07

 

 

 

18,650

(20)

 

 

$

411,046

 

 

 

31,083

(26)

 

 

$

685,069

 

 

 

 

 

33,334

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

17.1250

 

 

2 Feb 09

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37,896

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

36.3150

 

 

4 Feb 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

55.6100

 

 

21 Jan 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

22,801

(14)

 

 

 

$

8.9700

 

 

4 Feb 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13,792

 

 

 

27,584

(15)

 

 

 

$

16.8100

 

 

25 Feb 15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


*Closing price on the last day of the fiscal year (December 29, 2006) was $22.04.

NOTES:

(1)  Mr. Hanrahan was granted 168,666 options on February 4, 2004, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 56,222 were unvested. All remaining 56,222 options vested on February 4, 2007.

(2)  Mr. Hanrahan was granted 97,997 options on February 25, 2005, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 65,331 were unvested of which 32,665 vested on February 25, 2007 and 32,666 will vest on February 25, 2008.

(3)  Mr. Hanrahan was granted 152,672 options on February 24, 2006, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, all 152,672 options were unvested of which 50,891 vested on February 24, 2007, 50,890 will vest on February 24, 2008, and 50,891 will vest on February 24, 2009.


(4)  Ms. Harker was granted 23,340 options on January 23, 2006, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, all 23,340 options were unvested of which 7,780 vested on January 23, 2007, 7,780 will vest on January 23, 2008, and 7,780 will vest on January 23, 2009.

(5)  Mr. Luraschi was granted 56,222 options on February 4, 2004, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 18,741 were unvested. All remaining 18,741 options vested on February 4, 2007.

(6)  Mr. Luraschi was granted 32,666 options on February 25, 2005, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 21,777 were unvested of which 10,888 vested on February 25, 2007 and 10,889 will vest on February 25, 2008.

(7)  Mr. Luraschi was granted 47,710 options on February 24, 2006, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, all 47,710 options were unvested of which 15,904 vested on February 24, 2007, 15,903 will vest on February 24, 2008, and 15,903 will vest on February 24, 2009.

(8)  Mr. Gluski was granted 22,489 options on February 4, 2004, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 7,496 were unvested. All remaining 7,496 options vested on February 4, 2007.

(9)  Mr. Gluski was granted 13,066 options on February 25, 2005, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 8,710 were unvested of which 4,355 vested on February 25, 2007 and 4,355 will vest on February 25, 2008.

(10)  Mr. Gluski was granted 40,553 options on February 24, 2006, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, all 40,553 options were unvested of which 13,518 vested on February 24, 2007, 13,517 will vest on February 24, 2008, and 13,518 will vest on February 24, 2009.

(11)  Mr. Jaisinghani was granted 19,490 options on February 4, 2004, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 6,497 were unvested. All remaining 6,497 options vested on February 4, 2007.

(12)  Mr. Jaisinghani was granted 11,868 options on February 25, 2005, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 7,912 were unvested of which 3,956 vested on February 25, 2007 and 3,956 will vest on February 25, 2008.

(13)  Mr. Jaisinghani was granted 41,349 options on February 24, 2006, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, all 41,349 options were unvested of which 13,783 vested on February 24, 2007, 13,783 will vest on February 24, 2008, and 13,783 will vest on February 24, 2009.

(14)  Mr. Sharp was granted 68, 403 options on February 4, 2004, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 22,801 were unvested. All remaining 22,801 option vested on February 4, 2007.

(15)  Mr. Sharp was granted 41,376 options on February 25, 2005, which vest ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 27,584 were unvested of which 13,792 vested on February 25, 2007 and 13,792 will vest on February 25, 2008.

(16)  Mr. Hanrahan was granted 137,960 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Hanrahan vested in the two-thirds of the award (91,973) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria. The remaining one-third of the award (45,987) that remained unvested at December 31, 2006 became vested on February 4, 2007.

(17)  The number of shares reported in this column for Mr. Luraschi is from two separate grants.

Mr. Luraschi was granted 59,079 RSUs on May 4, 2005 in connection with his promotion to Executive Vice President for Business Development and Strategy. The grant vests ratably over three years. As of December 31, 2006, 39,386 RSUs were unvested of which 19,693 will vest on May 4, 2007 and 19,693 will vest on May 4, 2008. Mr. Luraschi was granted 45,987 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Luraschi vested in the two-thirds of the award (30,658) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria. The remaining one-third of the award (15,329) that remained unvested at December 31, 2006 became vested on February 4, 2007.

(18)  Mr. Gluski was granted 18,395 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Gluski vested in the two-thirds of the award (12,263) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria. The remaining one-third of the award (6,132) that remained unvested at December 31, 2006 became vested on February 4, 2007.

(19)  Mr. Jaisinghani was granted 15,942 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total return to shareholders for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Jaisinghani vested in the two-thirds of the award (10,628) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria. The remaining one-third of the award (5,314) that remained unvested at December 31, 2006 became vested on February 4, 2007.

(20)  Mr. Sharp was granted 55,950 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on the Company’s total stockholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Sharp vested in two-thirds of the award (37,300) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria. The remaining one-third of the award (18,650) that remained unvested at December 31, 2006 became vested on February 4, 2007.

(21)  Mr. Hanrahan was granted 73,616 RSUs on February 25, 2005 and 75,085 RSUs on February 24, 2006. For both awards, the RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period beginning January 1st in the year the RSUs are granted. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. As of December 31, 2006, the entire amount of both the February 25, 2005 grant and the February 24, 2006 grant are unvested and therefore are included in this column.

(22)  Ms. Harker was granted 17,558 RSUs on January 23, 2006. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period beginning January 1st in the year the RSUs are granted. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. As of December 31, 2006, the entire amount of the January 23, 2006 grant is unvested and therefore is included in this column.

(23)  Mr. Luraschi was granted 24,539 RSUs on February 25, 2005 and 23,464 RSUs on February 24, 2006. For both awards, the RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period beginning January 1st in the year the RSUs are granted. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. As of December 31, 2006, the entire amount of both the February 25, 2005 grant and the February 24, 2006 grant are unvested and therefore are included in this column.


(24)  Mr. Gluski was granted 9,815 RSUs on February 25, 2005 and 19,944 RSUs on February 24, 2006. For both awards, the RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period beginning January 1st in the year the RSUs are granted. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. As of December 31, 2006, the entire amount of both the February 25, 2005 grant and the February 24, 2006 grant are unvested and therefore are included in this column.

(25)  Mr. Jaisinghani was granted 8,916 RSUs on February 25, 2005 and 20,336 RSUs on February 24, 2006. For both awards, the RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period beginning January 1st in the year the RSUs are granted. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. As of December 31, 2006, the entire amount of both the February 25, 2005 grant and the February 24, 2006 grant are unvested and therefore are included in this column.

(26)  Mr. Sharp was granted 31,083 RSUs on February 25, 2005. For this award, the RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on the Company’s total stockholder return for the three-year period beginning January 1 in the year the RSUs are granted. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. As of December 31, 2006, the entire amount of the February 25, 2005 grant are unvested and therefore are included in this column.

Option Exercises and Stock Vested (2006)

The following table contains information concerning each exercise of Options and the vesting of Restricted Stock Unit awards by the named executive officers during 2006.

 

 

Option Awards

 

Stock Awards

 

Name

 

 

 

Number of Shares
Acquired on
Exercise (#)

 

Value Realized
on Exercise ($)

 

Number of Shares
Acquired on
Vesting (#)

 

Value Realized
on Vesting ($)

 

Paul Hanrahan

 

 

346,668

 

 

 

$

4,490,673

 

 

 

91,973

(1)

 

 

$

2,027,085

 

 

Victoria Harker

 

 

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

 

 

William R. Luraschi

 

 

267,985

 

 

 

$

3,808,811

 

 

 

50,351

(2)

 

 

$

1,002,409

 

 

Andres R. Gluski

 

 

20,000

 

 

 

$

140,249

 

 

 

12,263

(3)

 

 

$

270,277

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani

 

 

151,731

 

 

 

$

2,110,746

 

 

 

10,628

(4)

 

 

$

234,241

 

 

Barry J. Sharp

 

 

874,320

 

 

 

$

9,427,340

 

 

 

37,300

(5)

 

 

$

822,092

 

 


NOTES:

(1)   Mr. Hanrahan was granted 137,960 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Hanrahan vested in the two-thirds of the award (91,973) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria.

(2)   The number of shares reported in this column is from two separate grants.

Mr. Luraschi was granted 59,079 RSUs on May 4, 2005 in connection with his promotion to Executive Vice President for Business Development and Strategy. The grant vests ratably over three years. On May 4, 2006, 19,693 RSUs vested.

Mr. Luraschi was granted 45,987 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Luraschi vested in the two-thirds of the award (30,658) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria.

(3)  Mr. Gluski was granted 18,395 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total shareholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Gluski vested in the two-thirds of the award (12,263) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria.

230




(4)          Mr. Jaisinghani was granted 15,942 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total shareholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Jaisinghani vested in the two-thirds of the award (10,628) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria.

(5)          Mr. Sharp was granted 55,950 RSUs on February 4, 2004. The RSUs vest based on two conditions. The first is based on our total shareholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuing the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. On December 31, 2006, the performance condition was achieved and Mr. Sharp vested in two-thirds of the award (37,300) for which he had achieved the service-based vesting criteria.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

The following table contains information for the named executive officers for each of our plans that provides for the deferral of compensation that is not tax-qualified.

Name

 

 

 

Executive
Contributions in
Last FY ($)(1)

 

Registrant
Contributions in
Last FY ($)(2)

 

Aggregate
Earnings in Last
FY ($)(3)

 

Aggregate
Withdrawals /
Distributions ($)

 

Aggregate
Balance at Last
FYE ($)(4)

 

Paul Hanrahan

 

 

$

2,304,885

 

 

 

$

184,542

 

 

 

$

289,710

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

3,443,961

 

 

Victoria Harker

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

William R. Luraschi

 

 

$

702,102

 

 

 

$

61,500

 

 

 

$

81,693

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

1,019,951

 

 

Andres R. Gluski

 

 

$

270,277

 

 

 

$

21,583

 

 

 

$

9,038

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

310,291

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani

 

 

$

260,641

 

 

 

$

34,533

 

 

 

$

18,622

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

336,286

 

 

Barry J. Sharp

 

 

$

822,092

 

 

 

$

67,600

 

 

 

$

85,514

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

1,249,586

 

 


NOTES:

(1)          Amounts in this column represent contributions to the Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan and the mandatory deferral of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) that became vested on December 31, 2006. The RSUs vested based on two conditions. The first was based on our total stockholder return for the three-year period ending December 31, 2006. Assuming the first condition is met, the RSUs vest in three equal annual installments beginning one year from grant. As of December 31, 2006, the total stockholder return condition was satisfied and two-thirds of the RSU grant became fully vested. The following is a breakdown of amounts reported in this column:

 

 

Executive Contributions to
Restoration Supplemental
Retirement Plan

 

Mandatory Deferral of RSUs
Vesting on December 31, 2006

 

Paul Hanrahan, CEO

 

 

$

277,800

 

 

 

$

2,027,085

 

 

Victoria Harker, EVP & CFO

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

 

$

26,400

 

 

 

$

675,702

 

 

Andres R. Gluski, EVP & COO

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

270,277

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP

 

 

$

26,400

 

 

 

$

234,241

 

 

Barry J. Sharp, Former EVP & CFO

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

822,092

 

 

(2)          Amounts in this column represent our contributions to the Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan. The amount reported in this column and our additional contributions to the 401K Plan are included in the amounts reported in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table.


(3)          Amounts in this column represent investment earnings under the Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan and, for Mr. Hanrahan, Mr. Luraschi, and Mr. Jaisinghani, investment earnings under our Supplemental Retirement Plan. A breakdown of amounts reported in this column is as follows:

 

 

Investment Earnings Under
Restoration Supplemental
Retirement Plan

 

Investment Earnings Under
Supplemental Retirement Plan

 

Paul Hanrahan, CEO

 

 

$

108,185

 

 

 

$

181,525

 

 

Victoria Harker, EVP & CFO

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

 

$

33,596

 

 

 

$

48,096

 

 

Andres R. Gluski, EVP &COO

 

 

$

9,038

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP

 

 

$

16,890

 

 

 

$

1,733

 

 

Barry J. Sharp, Former EVP & CFO

 

 

$

2,226

 

 

 

$

83,289

 

 

(4)          Amounts in this column represent the balance of amounts in the Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan, the Supplemental Retirement Plan and the mandatory deferral of RSUs. A breakdown of amounts reported in this column is as follows:

 

 

Restoration Supplemental
Retirement Plan
Account Balance

 

Supplemental Retirement
Plan Account Balance

 

Fair Market Value
of Deferred RSUs

 

Paul Hanrahan, CEO

 

 

$

772,625

 

 

 

$

644,251

 

 

 

$

2,027,085

 

 

Victoria Harker, EVP & CFO

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

 

$

173,549

 

 

 

$

170,700

 

 

 

$

675,702

 

 

Andres R. Gluski, EVP & COO

 

 

$

40,015

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

270,277

 

 

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP

 

 

$

95,896

 

 

 

$

6,149

 

 

 

$

234,241

 

 

Barry J. Sharp, Former EVP & CFO

 

 

$

131,894

 

 

 

$

295,600

 

 

 

$

822,092

 

 

Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Nonqualified Deferred Contribution Table

The AES Corporation 2004 Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan

Certain of our officers and key management employees, including the named executive officers, participate in The AES Corporation 2004 Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “RSRP”). The RSRP is designed primarily to provide participants with supplemental retirement benefits to make up for the fact that participant and company contributions to The AES Corporation Profit Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the “401K Plan”) are limited by restrictions imposed by the Code.

Under the 401K Plan, eligible employees, including executive officers, can elect to defer a portion of their compensation into the 401K Plan, subject to certain statutory limitations imposed by the Code (such as the limitations imposed by Sections 402(g) and 401(a)(17) of the Code). The Company matches—dollar-for-dollar—the first five percent of compensation that an individual contributes to the 401K Plan.

Annually, we may choose to make a discretionary retirement savings contribution (a “Profit Sharing Contribution”) to all eligible participants. The Profit Sharing Contribution—made in the form of our common stock—is allocated to individual participant accounts in relation to their compensation, subject to certain statutory limitations imposed by the Code (such as the limitations imposed by Sections 401(a)(17) and 415 of the Code).

232




Our United States officers and key management employees with base salaries that exceed $140,000 a year may participate in the RSRP. A participant in the RSRP may defer up to 50 percent of the participant’s compensation (exclusive of bonus) and up to 80 percent of the participant’s bonus compensation under the RSRP. If a participant makes elective deferrals under the RSRP, the participant’s account will also be credited with a supplemental matching contribution. The amount of the supplemental matching contribution is equal to the matching contribution that we would have made under the 401K Plan (taking into account the participant’s deferral election) if no Code limits applied, less the maximum company contribution available under the 401K Plan.

The RSRP also provides for a supplemental profit sharing contribution. The amount of the supplemental profit sharing contribution is equal to the difference between the Profit Sharing Contribution made on behalf of the participant under the 401K Plan and the Profit Sharing Contribution that would have been made on behalf of the participant under the 401K Plan if no Code limits applied.

Matching contributions and supplemental profit sharing contributions are deemed to have been made in our common stock. Thereafter, a participant may chose to have different investment benchmarks apply to such deferred amounts, as described in greater detail below.

Participants in the RSRP may designate up to three separate deferral accounts, each of which may have a different distribution date and a different distribution option. A participant may elect to have distributions made in a lump sum payment or annually over a period of two to 15 years. All distributions are made in cash.

Earnings or losses are credited to the deferral accounts by the amount that would have been earned or lost if the amounts were invested in hypothetical investments designated by a participant from a list of hypothetical investments provided by the Compensation Committee. These benchmarks are functionally equivalent to the investments made available to all participants in the 401K Plan. A participant may change such designations at such times as are permitted by the Compensation Committee, but no less frequently than quarterly.

Participants in the RSRP are always 100 percent vested in their account balances.

Restricted Stock Units

Under the terms of our LTC Plan, shares are not issued pursuant to an award of RSUs until two years after the RSUs are vested. A description of the terms of the RSUs is contained in “Narrative Disclosure Relating to Summary Compensation and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table—2003 Long Term Compensation Plan—Restricted Stock Units” in this Form 10-K.

The AES Corporation Supplemental Retirement Plan

The Supplemental Retirement Plan is a plan which was established to provide deferred compensation for select managers and highly compensated employees. Under the terms of the Supplemental Retirement Plan, once a participant made the maximum allowable contribution to the 401K Plan under the Code, the participant could defer compensation under the Supplemental Retirement Plan. We made an annual credit to the participant’s deferral account in an amount equal to the maximum percentage of compensation for matching awards permitted under the 401K Plan.

The Supplemental Retirement Plan also provided for the deferral of a portion of the Profit Sharing Contribution. The amount of the deferral under the Supplemental Retirement Plan is the difference between the Profit Sharing Contribution made to the employee’s 401K Plan and the Profit Sharing Contribution that would have been made under the 401K Plan if no Code limits applied and certain other requirements were met.

233




The amounts deferred under the Supplemental Retirement Plan are deemed to be invested in accordance with the investment policy established from time to time by the Human Resources Committee administering the 401K Plan.

The deferred amounts can be withdrawn in any manner permitted by the 401K Plan prior to the termination of a participant’s employment and otherwise upon the termination of the participant’s employment.

The Supplemental Retirement Plan was amended in 2004 to preclude the addition of new participants and additional deferrals after December 31, 2004.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

The following tables contain information concerning the estimated payments to be made to each of the named executive officers in connection with a termination of employment or a change in control. The amounts assume that a termination or change in control event occurred on December 31, 2006, and, where applicable, uses the closing price of our common stock of $22.04 (as reported on the New York Stock Exchange as of December 29, 2006).

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control(1)

Paul Hanrahan, CEO

 

 

Retirement

 

Voluntary

 

For Cause

 

Without
Cause/Good
Reason

 

Change in
Control

 

Death

 

Disability

 

Cash Severance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Bonus

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

4,515,000

 

 

$

6,772,500

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Pro rata Annual Bonus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash LTIP Awards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

6,900,000

 

$

6,900,000

 

$

6,900,000

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

4,290,916

 

$

4,290,916

 

$

4,290,916

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unexercisable Options

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

1,530,447

 

 

$

1,757,420

 

$

1,757,420

 

$

1,757,420

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

1,530,447

 

 

$

6,048,336

 

$

6,048,336

 

$

6,048,336

 

Retirement Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DC Plan

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Unvested Deferred Compensation

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Other Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

20,000

 

 

$

30,000

 

 

 

 

 

Life Insurance Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

250,000

(2)

$

0

 

Disability Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

(3

)

Outplacement Assistance

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

15,000

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Tax Gross Ups

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

5,615,697

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

35,000

 

 

$

5,645,697

 

$

250,000

 

(3

)

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

6,080,447

 

 

$

25,366,533

 

$

13,198,336

 

$

12,948,336

 


Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control(1)

Victoria Harker, EVP and CFO

 

 

Retirement

 

Voluntary

 

For Cause

 

Without
Cause/Good
Reason

 

Change in
Control

 

Death

 

Disability

 

Cash Severance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Bonus

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

900,000

 

 

$

1,800,000

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Pro rata Annual Bonus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash LTIP Awards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

562,500

 

$

562,500

 

$

562,500

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

386,978

 

$

386,978

 

$

386,978

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unexercisable Options

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

103,163

 

$

103,163

 

$

103,163

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

490,141

 

$

490,141

 

$

490,141

 

Retirement Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DC Plan

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Unvested Deferred Compensation

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Other Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

20,000

 

 

 

 

 

Life Insurance Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

250,000

(2)

$

0

 

Disability Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

(3

)

Outplacement Assistance

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Tax Gross Ups

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,055,945

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

1,075,945

 

$

250,000

 

(3

)

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

910,000

 

 

$

3,928,586

 

$

1,302,641

 

$

1,052,641

 


Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control(1)

William R. Luraschi, EVP

 

 

Retirement

 

Voluntary

 

For Cause

 

Without
Cause/Good
Reason

 

Change in
Control

 

Death

 

Disability

 

Cash Severance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Bonus

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

973,750

 

 

$

1,974,500

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Pro rata Annual Bonus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash LTIP Awards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

2,250,000

 

$

2,250,000

 

$

2,250,000

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

868,067

 

 

$

2,263,905

 

$

2,263,905

 

$

2,263,905

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unexercisable Options

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

571,625

 

$

571,625

 

$

571,625

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

868,067

 

 

$

2,835,530

 

$

2,835,530

 

$

2,835,530

 

Retirement Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DC Plan

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Unvested Deferred Compensation

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Other Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

20,000

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Life Insurance Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

250,000

(2)

$

0

 

Disability Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

(3

)

Outplacement Assistance

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Tax Gross Ups

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

2,342,424

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

2,362,424

 

$

250,000

 

(3

)

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

1,851,817

 

 

$

9,395,453

 

$

5,335,530

 

$

5,085,530

 


Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control(1)

Andres R. Gluski, EVP & COO

 

 

Retirement

 

Voluntary

 

For Cause

 

Without
Cause/Good
Reason

 

Change in
Control

 

Death

 

Disability

 

Cash Severance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Bonus

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

890,000

 

 

$

1,780,000

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Pro rata Annual Bonus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash LTIP Awards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,237,500

 

$

1,237,500

 

$

1,237,500

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

791,052

 

$

791,052

 

$

791,052

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unexercisable Options

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

324,392

 

$

324,392

 

$

324,392

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,115,445

 

$

1,115,445

 

$

1,115,445

 

Retirement Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DC Plan

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Unvested Deferred Compensation

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Other Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

20,000

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Life Insurance Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

250,000

(2)

$

0

 

Disability Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

(3

)

Outplacement Assistance

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Tax Gross Ups

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,364,582

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

1,384,582

 

$

250,000

 

(3

)

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

900,000

 

 

$

5,517,527

 

$

2,602,945

 

$

2,352,945

 


Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control(1)

Haresh Jaisinghani, EVP 

 

 

Retirement

 

Voluntary

 

For Cause

 

Without
Cause/Good
Reason

 

Change in
Control

 

Death

 

Disability

 

Cash Severance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Bonus

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

860,000

 

 

$

1,720,000

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Pro rata Annual Bonus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash LTIP Awards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,182,500

 

$

1,182,500

 

$

1,182,500

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

761,835

 

$

761,835

 

$

761,835

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unexercisable Options

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

310,712

 

$

310,712

 

$

310,712

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,072,547

 

$

1,072,547

 

$

1,072,547

 

Retirement Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DC Plan

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Unvested Deferred Compensation

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Other Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

20,000

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Life Insurance Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

250,000

(2)

$

0

 

Disability Benefits

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

(3

)

Outplacement Assistance

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Tax Gross Ups

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,288,684

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

1,308,684

 

$

250,000

 

(3

)

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

870,000

 

 

$

5,283,731

 

$

2,505,047

 

$

2,255,047

 


Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control(1)

Barry J. Sharp, Former EVP & CFO

 

 

Retirement

 

Voluntary

 

For Cause

 

Without
Cause/Good
Reason

 

Change in
Control

 

Death

 

Disability

 

Cash Severance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Bonus

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Pro rata Annual Bonus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash LTIP Awards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,862,500

 

$

1,862,500

 

$

1,862,500

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restricted Stock Units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measurement Period:

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,096,115

 

$

1,096,115

 

$

1,096,115

 

2004-2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005-2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006-2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unexercisable Options

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

442,273

 

$

442,273

 

$

442,273

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

1,538,389

 

$

1,538,389

 

$

1,538,389

 

Retirement Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DC Plan

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Unvested Deferred Compensation

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Other Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health & Welfare

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Life Insurance Benefits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disability Benefits Accrued Vacation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outplacement Assistance

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Tax Gross Ups

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

$

0

 

Total

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

3,400,889

 

$

3,400,889

 

$

3,400,889

 


(1)          For the aggregate number of vested options and RSUs outstanding as of December 31, 2006, see the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End Table. For information regarding the aggregate amount of our named executive officers' vested benefits under our nonqualified deferred compensation plans, see the Nonqualifed Deferred Compensation Table.

(2)          Basic life insurance is provided to all employees; the maximum benefit amount is $250,000. Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance is provided to all employees in addition to basic life insurance. The AD&D benefit amount is equal to the basic life benefit amount; this benefit is not included in the termination tables. Additional optional life insurance is also available to all employees up to a maximum total benefit amount of $500,000. Employees are responsible for the cost of additional life insurance premiums, should they choose to elect this optional coverage; therefore, any additional life insurance benefits above the basic benefit is not included in the termination tables.

(3)          AES provides long-term disability benefits to all employees. Should a long-term disability occur, this plan would provide an employee with a monthly benefit of 662¤3% of base pay up to a maximum of $10,000 per month.

239




Additional Information Relating to Potential Payments Upon
Termination of Employment or Change in Control

Employment Agreements

Certain terms of our Employment Agreements with Mr. Hanrahan and Ms. Harker are described in “Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table” in this Form 10-K. The Employment Agreements also provide for certain payments and benefits to be made to them upon the termination of their respective employment. The payments and benefits that would be made are based upon the circumstances of the termination, including whether it occurs after a change in control.

In the event of a termination of the executive’s employment due to disability, the executive is entitled to receive disability benefits under our long term disability program then in effect, the executive’s base salary through the end of the month preceding the month in which disability benefits begin, and a pro rata portion of the executive’s annual bonus, based upon the number of days the executive was employed during the year (a “Pro Rata Bonus”).

In the event of a termination of the executive’s employment due to death, the executive’s legal representative is entitled to receive the executive’s base salary through the termination date and the Pro Rata Bonus.

In the event that we terminate the executive’s employment for “Cause” (as defined below) or the executive resigns without “Good Reason” (as defined below), the executive is entitled only to receive his or her base salary through the termination date.

If the executive terminates his or her employment for “Good Reason” or if we terminate the executive’s employment other than for “Cause” or because of the executive’s disability, the executive is entitled to receive his or her base salary through the termination date, the Pro Rata Bonus, and an additional lump sum payment (a “Severance Payment”). The Severance Payment for Mr. Hanrahan is equal to two times the sum of his base salary and target bonus for the year in which the termination of his employment occurs. The Severance Payment for Ms. Harker is the sum of her base salary and target bonus for the year in which the termination of her employment occurs. In addition, each executive is entitled to continue to participate in all medical, dental, hospitalization, life insurance, and other welfare, fringe benefit and perquisite programs the executive was participating in at the time of the termination of the executive’s employment. Such benefits will continue for a period of 24 months for Mr. Hanrahan and for a period of 12 months for Ms. Harker. If a termination of Mr. Hanrahan’s employment occurs under the circumstances described in this paragraph, each stock option held by him will remain outstanding and will continue to vest for a three year period after the termination of his employment.

If a termination of the executive’s employment under the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph occurs within two years after a “Change in Control” (as defined below), certain adjustments are made to the payments and benefits described in that paragraph. In the case of Mr. Hanrahan, his Severance Payment is increased to three times the sum of his base salary and target bonus, he is entitled to continued participation in our welfare, fringe benefit, and perquisite programs for an additional 12 months, and each of his stock options become immediately exercisable and may be exercised until the earlier of (1) the original term of the stock option or (2) the fourth anniversary of his termination. In the case of Ms. Harker, the amount of her Severance Payment is doubled.

If any of the payments or benefits provided to the executive in connection with a “Change in Control” subject the executive to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code, we must make a gross up payment to the executive which will result in the executive receiving the net amount the executive is entitled to receive, after the deduction of all applicable taxes.


Our obligation to make payments to each executive in connection with the termination of the executive’s employment is conditioned upon the executive’s compliance with certain non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement, and confidentiality obligations set forth in the Employment Agreements. Our payment obligations are also conditioned upon the executive executing and delivering a standard form of release we provide.

The following definitions are provided in the Employment Agreements for certain of the terms used in this description

Cause” means (A) willful and continued failure by the executive to substantially perform the executive’s duties with us (other than a failure resulting from the executive’s incapability due to physical or mental illness or any failure after the executive has delivered a notice of termination for Good Reason), after we deliver a demand for substantial performance, or (B) willful misconduct which is demonstrably and materially injurious to us, monetarily or otherwise.

Change in Control” means the occurrence of any one of the following events: (a) any person is or becomes the beneficial owner of our securities representing 30% or more of the combined voting power of our outstanding securities; (b) the following individuals cease for any reason to constitute a majority of our Board then serving: individuals who are directors on the date of the Employment Agreement and any new director whose appointment or election by the Board or nomination for election by our stockholders was approved or recommended by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the directors then still in office who either were directors on the date of the Employment Agreement or whose appointment, election or nomination for election was previously so approved or recommended; or (c) the consummation of a merger or consolidation of the Company or any direct or indirect subsidiary of the Company with any other corporation, other than (i) a merger or consolidation immediately following which the individuals who comprise the Board immediately prior thereto constitute at least a majority of the Board of the entity surviving such merger or consolidation or any parent thereof, or (ii) a merger or consolidation effected to implement a recapitalization; or (d) our stockholders approve a plan of complete liquidation or dissolution of the Company or there is consummated an agreement for the sale or disposition of all or substantially all of our assets. However, the foregoing events will not constitute a “Change in Control” if the record holders of our common stock immediately prior to a transaction or series of transactions continue to have substantially the same proportionate ownership in an entity which owns all or substantially all our assets immediately following such transaction or series of transactions.

Good Reason” means, without the executive’s consent, any material breach of the Employment Agreement by us which is not cured within 10 days of a written notice delivered by the executive.

AES Corporation Severance Plan

Messrs. Luraschi, Gluski, and Jaisinghani are entitled to the benefits provided by the AES Corporation Severance Plan (the “Severance Plan”). The Severance Plan provides certain payments and benefits upon the involuntary termination of their employment under certain circumstances.

Benefits are available under the Severance Plan if the executive’s employment is involuntarily terminated due to a permanent layoff, a reduction-in-force, the permanent elimination of his job, the restructuring or reorganization of a business unit, division, department or other business segment, a termination by mutual consent due to unsatisfactory job performance and we agree that the executive is entitled to benefits, or the executive declines to relocate to a new job position more than 50 miles from his current location.

Upon the termination of their employment under those circumstances, Messrs. Luraschi, Gluski, and Jaisinghani would be entitled to receive salary continuation payments equal to their annual base salary and


bonus, which would be paid over time in accordance with our payroll practices. They would also be entitled to receive an additional payment equal to a pro-rata portion of their bonus, based upon the time they were at work during the year in which their employment terminates. In the event that the executive elects COBRA coverage under the health plan he participates in, we would pay an amount of the premium he pays for such coverage (for up to 18 months) equal to the premium we pay for active employees.

In the case a termination of the executive’s employment under the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph occurs within two years after a “Change of Control” (as defined below) or due to a layoff, the amount of the executive’s salary continuation payment is doubled and the length of time we will assist in paying for the continuation of health care benefits is also doubled (but can never be more than 18 months).

Benefits are not available under the Severance Plan if the executive’s employment is terminated in connection with the sale of a business if the executive is employed by the purchaser or if the executive is offered employment with the purchaser with substantially equivalent benefits and salary package (provided the offer does not require the executive to relocate more than 50 miles from his current location).

A “Change of Control” means the occurrence of any one of the following events: (i) a transfer of all or substantially all of our assets, (ii) a person (other than someone in our management) becomes the beneficial owner of more than 35% of our outstanding common stock, or (iii) during any one year period directors at the beginning of the period (and any new directors whose election or nomination was approved by a majority of directors who were either in office at the beginning of the  period or were so approved (excluding anyone who became a director as a result of a threatened or actual proxy contest or solicitation)) cease to constitute a majority of the Board.

If any of the payments or benefits provided to the executive in connection with a “Change of Control” subject the executive to the excise tax imposed under Section 4999 of the Code, we must make a gross up payment to the executive which will result in the executive receiving the net amount the executive is entitled to receive, after the deduction of all applicable taxes.

Our obligation to provide the payments and benefits to the executive under the Severance Plan is conditioned upon the executive executing and delivering a written release of claims against us. At our discretion, the release may also contain such non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions as we may consider necessary or appropriate.

2003 Long Term Compensation Program

The vesting of Performance Units, Restricted Stock Units, and Stock Options and the ability of our named executive officers to exercise or receive payments under those awards are affected by a termination of their employment and by a Change of Control (defined in the same manner as the term “Change of Control” in the Severance Plan described above).

Performance Units

If the executive’s employment is terminated as a result of his death or disability prior to the end of the three-year performance period of a Performance Unit, the executive’s Performance Units vest on the termination date and an amount equal to $1.00 for each Performance Unit is paid within 90 days thereafter. If we terminate the executive’s employment for cause prior to the payment date of a Performance Unit, the Performance Unit is forfeited. If the executive’s employment is terminated for any other reason (including resignation or retirement), the executive will be entitled to receive the payment of the executive’s Performance Units that were vested at the time of such termination.


If a Change of Control occurs prior to the end of the three-year performance period, outstanding Performance Units become fully vested and an amount equal to $1.00 for each Performance Unit is payable, in cash, securities or other property.

Restricted Stock Units

If the executive’s employment is terminated prior to the third anniversary of the award of a Restricted Stock Unit, other than by reason of death or disability, all Restricted Stock Units not vested at the time of such termination are forfeited.

If a Change of Control occurs prior to the payment date under a Restricted Stock Unit award, outstanding Restricted Stock Units become fully vested and payable immediately prior to the Change of Control.

Stock Options

If the executive’s employment is terminated by reason of death or disability, the executive’s Options will vest, but will expire one year after the termination date or, if earlier, on the regular expiration date of such Option.

If we terminate the executive’s employment for cause, all of the executive’s unvested Options are forfeited and all vested options will expire three months after the termination date or, if earlier, on the regular expiration date of such Option.

If the executive’s employment is terminated for any other reason, all of the executive’s unvested Options are forfeited and all vested options will expire 180 days after the termination date or, if earlier, on the regular expiration date of such Option.

In the event of a Change of Control, all of the executive’s Options will vest and be fully exercisable. However, the Compensation Committee may cancel an executive’s outstanding Options (1) for consideration for a payment of the amount that the executive would be entitled to receive in the Change of Control transaction if the executive exercised the Options less the exercise price of such Options or (2) if the amount determined pursuant to (1) would be negative. Any such payment may be made in cash, securities, or other property.

The AES Corporation 2004 Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan

In the event of a termination of the executive’s employment, other than by reason of death, or in the event of a Change in Control (defined in the same manner as the term “Change of Control” in the Severance Plan described above), the balances of all of an executive’s deferral accounts under the RSRP will be paid in a lump sum. In the event of the executive’s death, the balances in an executive’s deferral accounts will be paid according to his elections if the executive was 591¤2 or more years old at the time of death, but otherwise in a lump sum.

243




Compensation of Directors

The following table contains information concerning the compensation of our non-management directors during 2006.

Director Compensation

Name(1)

 

 

 

Fees
Earned or
Paid in
Cash ($)

 

Stock
Awards
($)(2)

 

Option
Awards
($)(3)

 

Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)

 

Change in
Pension
Value &
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings ($)

 

All Other
Compensation ($)(4)

 

Total ($)

 

Richard Darman
Nonexecutive Chairman of the Board

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

399,750

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

15,000

 

 

$

414,750

 

Kristina M. Johnson

 

 

$

45,000

 

 

$

107,400

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

152,400

 

John A. Koskinen
Chair—Environment, Safety and Technology Committee

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

164,900

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

14,600

 

 

$

179,500

 

Philip Lader
Chair—Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

124,900

 

$

33,435

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

168,353

 

John H. McArthur
Chair—Financial Audit Committee

 

 

$

68,000

 

 

$

97,000

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

10,000

 

 

$

175,000

 

Sandra O. Moose

 

 

$

53,000

 

 

$

57,000

 

$

33,435

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

15,000

 

 

$

158,453

 

Philip A. Odeen
Chair—Compensation Committee

 

 

$

25,000

 

 

$

99,900

 

$

33,435

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

15,000

 

 

$

173,353

 

Charles O. Rossotti

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

159,900

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

15,000

 

 

$

174,900

 

Sven Sandstom

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

159,900

 

$

0

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

 

$

0

 

 

$

159,900

 


NOTES:

(1)Mr. Hanrahan is a member of our Board. Mr. Hanrahan’s compensation is reported in the Summary Compensation Table and the other tables set forth herein. In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, as an officer of AES, he does not receive any additional compensation in connection with his service on the Board.

(2)The following directors had the following number of Stock Units credited to their accounts as of December 31, 2006 under The AES Corporation Second Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors: Richard Darman 94,203, Kristina M. Johnson 31,234, John A. Koskinen 39,984, Philip Lader 34,431, John H. McArthur 39,267, Sandra O. Moose 22,756, Philip A. Odeen 24,009, Charles O. Rossotti 38,721, and Sven Sandstom 37,681.

(3)These amounts related to stock options granted in 2006. The values set forth in this column are based on the amounts recognized for financial statement reporting purposes computed in accordance with FAS 123R (disregarding any estimates of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions). The grant date fair value of the stock options awarded to each director that elected to receive stock options in 2006 is $40,000, calculated in accordance with FAS 123R (disregarding any estimates of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions). A discussion of the relevant assumptions made in these evaluations may be found in our financial statements, footnotes to the financial statements, or Management’s Discussion & Analysis, as appropriate, contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006


The following directors held options to purchase the following number of shares of our common stock as of December 31, 2006: Richard Darman 357,760, Kristina M. Johnson 0, John A. Koskinen 0, Phillip Lader 39,626, John H. McArthur 17,340, Sandra O. Moose 1,219, Phillip A. Odeen 11,204, Charles O. Rossotti 21,912, and Sven Sandstom 52,815.

(4)Represents amounts we contributed to charities selected by the director under a program pursuant to which we match charitable contributions made by the director.

Narrative Disclosure Relating to the Director Compensation Table

Compensation for Year 2006

Annual Retainer

Each outside director received a $50,000 annual retainer with a requirement that at least 34% be deferred in the form of stock units. Directors may elect (but are not required) to defer more than the mandatory 34% deferral. Any portion of the annual retainer that was deferred above the mandatory deferral was credited to the Director in stock units equivalent to 1.3 times the elected deferral amount.

Committee and Committee Chair Retainer

Directors received a $10,000 committee retainer for each Board committee on which they served. If a Director served as Chair of a committee, the Director received the applicable Committee Chair fee (as noted below in this paragraph), but did not receive the committee retainer. Directors did not receive committee meeting attendance fees as Board members and were expected to attend and participate fully in all meetings of committees on which they served. Directors may elect to defer a portion or the entire committee retainer in the form of stock units pursuant to the Director Plan. A Director serving as a Committee Chair was compensated as follows: the Audit Committee chair and the Finance and Investment Committee Chair received $25,000 per year; the remaining Committee Chairs received $15,000 per year.

Deferred Incentive Compensation Grant

Directors received an annual Deferred Incentive Compensation Grant valued at $80,000. Directors may elect to take the Deferred Incentive Compensation Grant in the form of stock units (vested immediately), an option grant or a mix of stock units and options. To the extent a Director elected to receive options, such options were subject to a ten-year term and a three-year vesting schedule; to be vested in three equal installments upon the anniversary of the date of grant. The Black Scholes valuation methodology was employed to determine the number of shares of stock which was awarded and grants were equal to 100% of the quoted market price on the date of grant. It is our policy to grant the options at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock (e.g. the closing price) on the date of grant and all options granted to directors during 2006 adhered to this policy. In connection with an internal accounting review of share-based compensation, we reviewed our historical practices with respect to the award of shre-based compensation and determined that not all of our past awards to our directors complied with this policy as a result of administrative or other errors or delays. Unless otherwise determined, options shall expire 180 days after termination of service. Units awarded pursuant to the Deferred Incentive Compensation grant will be paid out in accordance with 409(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and the terms of the relevant plan documents.

The Chairman of the Board

The Chairman of the Board is required to be a non-executive of AES. In addition to the duties of the Chairman related to the planning and structure of Board meetings and oversight of Board responsibilities, the Chairman, although not an officer or employee of the Company, serves as a member of the Company’s Executive Office and attends the meetings of the Executive Office. The Chairman also is required to serve


as an ex-officio member of all Board committees and therefore is expected to attend all committee meetings. The Chairman received compensation in an amount equal to 2.5 times the annual retainer and the Deferred Incentive Compensation grant. As with other Board members, the Chairman was required to defer 34% of the annual retainer in the form of stock units, but was  permitted to elect to defer more than the mandatory 34% deferral. Any amount of the annual retainer above the mandatory deferral amount that was deferred by the Chairman was valued at 1.3 times the elected deferred amount. The Chairman received in total $25,000 for the required service as an ex-officio member of the committees of the Board. If a Chairman of the Board serves as the Chairman of a committee, the Chairman receives the Chairman fee applicable to such committee.

Compensation for Year 2007

The Board compensation structure described above has not been adjusted by the Board since 2004.  As set forth below, the Board has instituted revisions to the amount of compensation provided under certain of the components of the compensation structure. The revised compensation amounts will be provided as applicable to outside Directors that are elected at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The individual components of the 2007 compensation structure for the Board, with the exception of a new procedure to provide compensation to Directors for service on ad hoc or special committees of the Board, will be identical to the components of the 2006 Board compensation structure described above.

The revised 2007 Board compensation is intended to meet the following goals:  promote the recruitment of talented and experienced Directors to the AES Board; compensate outside Directors for the increased workload and risk inherent in the Director position; continue to decrease the emphasis on option grants as compensation, while retaining a strong financial incentive for AES Directors to maintain and promote the long-term health and viability of the Company. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board consulted material regarding current trends and best practices for determining compensation for Boards of Directors from, among other sources, The National Association of Corporate Directors  (“NACD”) Blue Ribbon Commission, Pearl Meyer & Partners,  and Frederick W. Cook and Co., Inc.

For 2007, Directors elected at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders willreceive a $70,000 annual retainer with a requirement that at least 34% be deferred in the form of stock units. Directors may elect (but are not required) to defer more than the mandatory 34% deferral. Any portion of the Registrantannual retainer that is deferred above the mandatory deferral will be credited to the Director in stock units equivalent to 1.3 times the elected deferral amount. The Financial Audit Committee and Compensation Committee Chairs will each receive $25,000 per year and the remaining Committee Chairs will each receive $15,000 per year for their service. Directors will receive an annual Deferred Incentive Compensation Grant valued at $110,000. Directors may elect to take the Deferred Incentive Compensation Grant in the form of stock units (vested immediately), an option grant or a mix of stock units and options. The Board instituted a procedure to grant additional compensation for services provided by Directors in connection with membership on ad hoc or special committees of the Board. Director compensation for service on any such committee will be held on May 11,determined by the Nominating and Governance Committee. The Board also agreed to institute a procedure to review the Board compensation structure every two years. Under this procedure, the next review of Director compensation will occur in February 2009. All other terms of the 2007 Board compensation structure will remain consistent with the terms of the 2006 which is incorporated herein by reference.compensation structure described above.

246




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

(a)          Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners.

SeeSECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS,
DIRECTORS, AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table sets forth information regarding the information contained underbeneficial ownership of our common stock as of February 23, 2007by (a) each Director and each named executive officer set forth in the caption “Security OwnershipSummary Compensation Table in this Item 12, (b) all Directors and executive officers as a group and (c) all persons who are known by us to own more than five percent (5%) of Certain Beneficial Owners,our common stock. Unless otherwise indicated, each of the persons and group listed below has sole voting and dispositive power with respect to the shares shown. Under SEC Rule 13d-3 of the Exchange Act, “beneficial ownership” includes shares for which the individual directly or indirectly, has or shares voting or investment power whether or not the shares are held for individual benefit.

Except as otherwise indicated, the address for each person below is c/o The AES Corporation, 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Shares Beneficially Owned by Directors and Executive Officers”Officers

Name

 

Position Held with the Company

 

Shares of
Common Stock
Beneficially
Owned(1)(2)

 

% of
Class
(1)(2)

 

Richard Darman

 

Director and Chairman of the Board

 

 

818,963

(3)

 

*

 

Paul Hanrahan

 

President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director

 

 

1,683,181

(4)

 

 

 

Kristina M. Johnson

 

Director

 

 

31,234

 

 

 

 

John A. Koskinen

 

Director

 

 

39,984

 

 

 

 

Philip Lader

 

Director

 

 

195,208

(5)

 

*

 

John H. McArthur

 

Director

 

 

56,607

 

 

 

 

Sandra O. Moose

 

Director

 

 

23,975

 

 

 

 

Philip A. Odeen

 

Director

 

 

50,213

(6)

 

*

 

Charles O. Rossotti

 

Director

 

 

110,633

(7)

 

*

 

Sven Sandstrom

 

Director

 

 

90,496

 

 

*

 

Victoria Harker

 

Executive Vice President and CFO

 

 

10,131

 

 

*

 

William R. Luraschi

 

Executive Vice President
Business Development

 

 

370,447

 

 

*

 

Andres R. Gluski

 

Executive Vice President and COO

 

 

111,170

 

 

*

 

Haresh Jaisinghani

 

Executive Vice President

 

 

100,686

(8)

 

*

 

Barry J. Sharp

 

Former Executive Vice President
and CFO

 

 

332,457

(9)

 

 

 

All Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (20) persons)

 

 

 

 

6,374,338

 

 

0.91

 

Legg Mason Funds Management, Inc

 

100 Light Street

 

 

119,019,275

(10)

 

17.89

 

 

 

Baltimore, MD 21202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FMR Corporation

 

82 Devonshire Street
Boston, MA 02109

 

 

66,367,539

(11)

 

9.98

 


                 * Shares held represent less than 1% of the Proxy Statementtotal number of outstanding shares of common stock of the Company.


       (1) Shares of common stock subject to options, units or other securities that are exercisable or convertible into shares of our common stock within 60 days of February 23, 2007 are deemed to be outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding such options, units or other securities. However, such shares of common stock are not deemed to be outstanding for the Annual Meetingpurpose of Shareholderscomputing the percentage ownership of any other person.

       (2) Includes (a) the following shares issuable upon exercise of options outstanding as of February 23, 2007 that are able to be exercised on or before April 24, 2007: Mr. Darman – 432,760 shares; Dr. Johnson – 0; Mr. Koskinen – 0; Mr. Hanrahan – 1,418,378 shares; Mr. Lader – 39,626 shares; Mr. McArthur – 17,340 shares; Dr. Moose – 1,219; Mr. Odeen – 11,204 shares; Mr. Rossotti – 21,912 shares; Mr. Sandstrom – 52,815 shares; Mr. Luraschi – 242,121 shares, Ms. Harker – 7,780 shares; Mr. Gluski – 87,557 shares; Mr. Jaisinghani – 39,534 shares; and Mr. Sharp – 198,699 shares; all Directors and executive officers as a group – 2,915,548 shares; (b) the following units issuable under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors: Mr. Darman – 94,203 units; Dr. Johnson – 31,234 units; Mr. Koskinen – 39,984 units; Mr. Lader – 34,431 units; Mr. McArthur – 39,267 units; Dr. Moose – 22,756 units; Mr. Odeen – 24,009 units; Mr. Rossotti – 38,721 units; and Mr. Sandstrom – 37,681 units; all Directors as a group 362,286 units; (c) the following shares held in The AES Retirement Savings Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan: Mr. Hanrahan – 44,036 shares; Mr. Luraschi – 47,012 shares; Ms. Harker – 1.075 shares; Mr. Gluski – 2,215 shares; Mr. Jaisinghani – 25,353 shares; and Mr. Sharp – 57, 453 shares; all executive officers as a group 606,023 shares; and (d) the following units issuable under the Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan and the AES Corporation Supplemental Retirement Plan: Mr. Hanrahan – 52,270; Mr. Luraschi 15,634 units; Ms. Harker – 1,276 units; Mr. Gluski – 3,003 units;Mr. Jaisinghani – 5,328 units; and Mr. Sharp – 19,475 units; all executive officers as a group – 121,689 units; (e) the following fully vested RSUS issuable under the 2003 long-term compensation plan: Mr. Hanrahan – 137,960; Mr. Luraschi – 65,680; Ms. Harker – 0; Mr. Gluski – 18,395; Mr. Jaisinghani – 15,942; Mr. Sharp – 55,950; all executive officers as a group – 394,563.

       (3) Includes 160,000 shares held in a sub-chapter S corporation of which Mr. Darman has beneficial interest; also includes 17,000 shares held in a trust.

       (4) Includes 110 shares held by Mr. Hanrahan’s wife and 5,500 underlying shares of convertible securities.

       (5) Includes 7,086 shares owned jointly by Mr. Lader and his wife, 25 shares held by his daughter, 89,380 shares held in a family-established private foundation, of which Mr. Lader disclaims beneficial ownership, and 5,160 shares in an IRA for the benefit of Mr. Lader.

       (6) Includes 15,000 shares held jointly by Mr. Odeen and his wife.

       (7) Includes 40,000 shares held jointly by Mr. Rossotti and his wife.

       (8) Includes 232 shares owned by Mr. Jaisinghani’s spouse and 14,297 shares beneficially owned by Mr. Jaisinghani’s spouse pursuant to The AES Retirement Savings Plan;  Mr. Jaisinghani disclaims beneficial ownership of the Registrant to beaforementioned shares.

       (9) Includes 880 shares held in a UGMA account for Mr. Sharp’s daughter.

(10) Of this aggregate number, Legg Mason Funds Management, Inc. reported on May 11, 2006, which information is incorporated herein by reference.SEC Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated February 15, 2007, that it had (a) sole voting power on no shares, (b) shared voting power on 119,019,275 shares, (c) sole dispositive power on no shares, and (d) shared dispositive power on 119,019,275 shares.


(11) Of this aggregate number, FMR Corporation reported on SEC Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated February 14, 2007, that it had (a) sole voting power on 7,949,532 shares, (b) shared voting power on no shares, (c) sole dispositive power on 66,367,539 shares and (d) shared dispositive power on no shares.

(b)          Security Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers.

See the information contained under the caption “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners, Directors, and Executive Officers” of the Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Registrant to be held on May 11, 2006, which information is incorporated herein by reference.Item 12(a) above.

(c)           Changes in Control.

None.

(d)          Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans.Plans (As of December 31, 2006)

Except for the information concerning equity compensation plans below, the information required by Item 12 is incorporated by reference to the Company’s 2006 Proxy Statement under the caption “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management.”


The following table provides information about shares of AES common stock that may be issued under AES’s equity compensation plans, as of December 31, 2005:

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans (As of December 31, 2005)2006:

 

(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
future issuance under
equity compensation
plans (excluding
securities reflected
in column(a))

 

 

 

 

No. 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 future issuance
under equity
compensation
plans (excluding
securities reflected
in column (a))

 

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

 

 

24,271,734

 

 

 

$

16.56

 

 

 

14,845,291

 

 

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

 

 

23,928,709

(1)

 

 

$

18.93

(2)

 

 

10,798,378

 

 

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders(1)

 

 

10,778,193

 

 

 

$

13.15

 

 

 

560,885

 

 

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders(3)

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders(3)

 

 

8,553,107

 

 

 

13.14

 

 

 

682,007

 

 

Total

Total

 

 

35,049,927

 

 

 

$

15.51

 

 

 

15,406,176

 

 

Total

 

 

32,481,816

 

 

 

$

17.21

 

 

 

11,485,385

 

 


(1)          Includes 3,668,607 RSU awards and 20,260,102 Stock Option Grants.

(2)          RSUs not included.

(3)          The AES Corporation 2001 Non-officer Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) was adopted by our Board of Directors on October 18, 2001.  This Plan did not require approval under either the SEC or NYSE rules and /or regulations. Eligible participants under the Plan include all of our non-officer employees.  As of the end of December 31, 2005,2006, approximately 13,500 employees held options under the Plan.  The exercise price of each option awarded under the Plan is equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the grant date of the option. Options under the Plan generally vest as toat the rate of 50% of their underlying shares on each anniversary of the option grant date,per year for two years, however, grants dated October 25, 2001 vest in one year.  The Plan shall expire on October 25, 2011.  The Board may amend, modify or terminate the plan at any time.

249




ITEM 13.          CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

None.TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS

Related Person Policies and Procedures

Our policies and procedures for review, approval or ratification of transactions with “related persons” (as defined in the SEC rules) are not contained in a single policy or procedure; instead, relevant aspects of our program are drawn from various corporate documents. Our Audit Committee’s Charter provides that the Audit Committee is responsible for monitoring our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Ethics Code”), especially as the Ethics Code relates to conflicts of interest and related party transactions. Our Ethics Code requires that all AES individuals, including officers and directors, adhere to written codes of business conduct and ethics, and prohibits certain arrangements that may create a conflict of interest. These prohibitions include many arrangements that are relevant to related party transactions, including prohibitions against: accepting gifts of more than token value or receiving personal discounts or other benefits from a competitor, customer or supplier as a result of one’s position with the Company; receiving a loan or guarantee of an obligation from a competitor, customer or supplier as a result of one’s position with the Company; having an interest (other than routine investments in publicly traded companies) in a transaction involving the Company, a competitor, a customer or supplier; directing business to a supplier owned or managed by an AES person, or which employs, a relative or friend. The Ethics Code states that not all types of prohibited transactions can be listed and that if there is any doubt regarding the appropriateness of an arrangement under the provisions of our Ethics Code, our Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer must be consulted. The Ethics Code also requires that all directors, senior executive officers and senior financial officers disclose to the Chief Compliance Officer, in writing, any material transaction or relationship that may reasonably considered to be prohibited by the Ethics Code. The Chief Compliance Officer regularly reports any such transactions or relationships to the Audit Committee. The Charter of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also contains provisions relevant to related party transactions in that it requires that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee consider questions of independence and possible conflicts of interest of members of the Board and executive officers, and whether a candidate has special interests or a specific agenda that would impair his or her ability to effectively represent the interests of all stockholders. The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines also contain provisions relevant to related party transactions in that they require that directors to advise the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee in advance of accepting an invitation to serve on other public company boards of directors and further provide that the Board shall review, at least annually, the relationships that each director has with the Company (either directly or as an officer or director of another company that has a relationship with the Company). Related party transactions that are reviewed pursuant to the program outlined above may be identified by various sources, including the officers of the Company and the directors themselves (in this regard, the Company employs annual ethics compliance certifications and director and officer questionnaires to elicit relevant information) and third party reports to our compliance department of conduct that may fall within the prohibitions set forth in the Ethics Code.

Where related party transactions pose potential conflicts of interest involving directors or officers, the Audit Committee and/or Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews such transactions and makes determinations regarding their appropriateness and impact on our assessment of “related persons” and director independence and, where appropriate, approves or ratifies such transactions. Any affected directors or officers may recuse themselves from such deliberations. In making determinations with respect to possible conflicts of interest, directors are required to act in good faith and in the best interests of AES and its stockholders, as required by law.


ITEM 14.          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTINGACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

INFORMATION REGARDING THE INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FEES, SERVICES AND INDEPENDENCE

The informationfollowing table outlines the aggregate fees billed to the Company for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 by the Company’s principal accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, and their respective affiliates which includes Deloitte Consulting (collectively, “Deloitte & Touche”):

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

Audit Fees:

 

$

21,576,606

 

$

21,313,712

 

Audit Related Fees:

 

187,188

 

526,661

 

Total audit and audit-related fees:

 

21,763,794

 

21,840,373

 

Tax Fees:

 

6,037

 

984,376

 

All Other Fees:

 

13,063

 

0

 

Total Fees:

 

$

21,782,894

 

$

22,824,749

 

Audit Fees:   The aggregate amount noted above for Audit Fees includes fees for the audit of the Company’s financial statements, reviews of the Company’s quarterly financial statements (including restatement filings), attestation of management’s assessment of internal control, as required by this Item will be contained in our Proxy Statementthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 404, consents and other services related to SEC matters. The amount billed by Deloitte & Touche for the Annual Meeting of Shareholderswork that was required to be held on May 11,performed this year in connection with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 requirements totaled $4,136,663.

Audit Related Fees:   The aggregate amount noted above for Audit Related Fees includes fees for audits of employee benefit plans.

Tax Fees:   The aggregate amount noted above for tax fees includes fees for corporate and subsidiary tax return preparation services, expatriate tax return preparation services and consultations.

All Other Fees:   The aggregate amount noted above for All Other Fees includes fees for permitted non-audit services and consisted of miscellaneous projects.

Total Fees:   The amount of Total Fees excludes fees billed to equity method investees in both years. The Company desired to maintain an independent relationship between itself and Deloitte & Touche, and to ensure that level of independence during 2006, the Audit Committee maintained its policy established in 2002 within which to judge if Deloitte & Touche may be eligible to provide certain services outside of its main role as outside auditor. Services within the established framework include audit and related services and certain tax services. This framework is hereby incorporatedconsistent with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which address auditor independence. All audit and non-audit services provided to the Company by reference.Deloitte & Touche during 2006 were pre-approved by the Audit Committee, except in the case of certain de minimus non-audit services as permitted by Section 10A(i)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Board, acting through the Audit Committee, has resolved to phase out the use of the Company’s independent auditor for Company tax services. The Audit Committee Charter provides that the Audit Committee will pre-approve all audit services and all permissible non-audit services to be performed by the Company by its independent registered public accounting firm. From time to time, the Audit Committee may delegate its authority to pre-approve non-audit services to one or more committee members and such approvals shall be reported to the full committee at a future meeting of the committee.


PART IV

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

(a)1.   Financial Statements. The following Consolidated Financial Statements of The AES Corporation are filed under “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

 

2.Financial Statement Schedules.  See Index to Financial Statement Schedules of the Registrant and subsidiaries at page S-1 hereof, which index is incorporated herein by reference.

(b)          Exhibits.


3.1

 

Sixth Restated Certificate of Incorporation of The AES Corporation and incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2002 Form 10-K.

 

3.2

 

By-Laws of The AES Corporation, as amended and incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2002 Form 10-K.

 

4.1

Senior Indenture, dated December 31, 2002, between The AES Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Trustee is herein incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2002.

4.1.1

First Supplemental Indenture dated as of July 29, 2003 to Senior Indenture dated as of December 13, 2002, among The AES Corporation as the Company and AES Hawaii Management Company, Inc., AES New York Funding, L.L.C., AES Oklahoma Holdings, L.L.C., AES Warrior Run Funding, L.L.C., as Subsidiary Guarantors party hereto and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association as Trustee. Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended June 30, 2003.

4.2

 

Collateral Trust Agreement dated as of December 12, 2002 among The AES Corporation, AES International Holdings II, Ltd., Wilmington Trust Company, as corporate trustee and Bruce L. Bisson, an individual trustee is herein incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2002.

 

4.3

4.2

 

Security Agreement dated as of December 12, 2002 made by The AES Corporation to Wilmington Trust Company, as corporate trustee and Bruce L. Bisson, as individual trustee is herein incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 of the Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2002.

 

4.4

4.3

 

Charge Over Shares dated as of December 12, 2002 between AES International Holdings II, Ltd. and Wilmington Trust Company, as corporate trustee and Bruce L. Bisson, as individual trustee is herein incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 of the Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2002.

 

4.5

4.4

 

There are numerous instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term indebtedness of the Registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries, none of which exceeds ten percent of the total assets of the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The Registrant hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any of such agreements to the Commission upon request.

 

10.1

 

Amended Power Sales Agreement, dated as of December 10, 1985, between Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and AES Shady Point, Inc. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 33-40483).

 

10.2

 

First Amendment to the Amended Power Sales Agreement, dated as of December 19, 1985, between Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and AES Shady Point, Inc. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.45 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 33-46011).

 

10.3

 

The AES Corporation Profit Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4(c)(1) to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-49262).

 

10.4

 

The AES Corporation Incentive Stock Option Plan of 1991, as amended, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.30 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995.


10.5

 

Applied Energy Services, Inc. Incentive Stock Option Plan of 1982 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.31 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 33-40483).

 

10.6

 

Deferred Compensation Plan for Executive Officers, as amended, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1(Registration No. 33-40483).


10.7

 

Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended March 31, 1998, filed May 15, 1998.

 

10.8

 

The AES Corporation Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors as amended is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2003 Proxy Statement.

 

10.9

 

The AES Corporation Supplemental Retirement Plan is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.6410.63 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 1994.

 

10.10

 

The AES Corporation 2001 Stock Option Plan is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2000.

 

10.11

 

Second Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2000.

 

10.12

 

The AES Corporation 2001 Non-Officer Stock Option Plan is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2002 Form 10-K.

 

10.13

 

The AES Corporation 2003 Long Term Compensation Plan is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2003 Proxy Statement.

 

10.13.A

 

Form of Nonqualified Stock Option Award Agreement Pursuant to the AES Corporation 2003 Long Term Compensation Plan is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004.*

 

10.13.B

 

Form of Performance Unit Award Agreement Pursuant to The AES Corporation 2003 Long Term Compensation Plan is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13B to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004.*

 

10.13.C

 

Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement Pursuant to The AES Corporation 2003 Long Term Compensation Plan is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13C to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004.*

 

10.13.D

 

Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement Pursuant to The AES Corporation 2003 Long Term Compensation plan, dated as of May 4, 2005, entered into by and between the Registrant and William R. Luraschi.*

 

10.14

 

The AES Corporation Employment Agreement with Paul Hanrahan is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2002 Form 10-K.

 

10.15

 

The AES Corporation Employment Agreement with Barry J. Sharp is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2002 Form 10-K.

 

10.16

 

The AES Corporation Employment Agreement with John R. Ruggirello is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2002 Form 10-K.

 

10.17

 

The AES Corporation Employment Agreement with William R. Luraschi is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2002 Form 10-K.

 

10.18

 

The AES Corporation Employment Agreement with Robert F. Hemphill is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s 2003 Form 10-K.

 

10.19

 

The AES Corporation Employment Agreement with Victoria D. Harker is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.2 of the Form 8-K filed on January 24, 2006.2007.


 

10.20

 

Second Amended and Restated Credit and Reimbursement Agreement dated as of July 29, 2003 among The AES Corporation, as Borrower, AES Oklahoma Holdings, L.L.C., AES Hawaii Management Company, Inc., AES Warrior Run Funding, L.L.C., and AES New York Funding, L.L.C., as Subsidiary Guarantors, Citicorp USA, INC., as Administrative Agent, Citibank, N.A., as Collateral Agent, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as Lead Arranger and Book Runner, Banc Of America Securities L.L.C., as Lead Arranger and Book Runner and as Co-Syndication Agent (Term Loan Facility), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., as Lead Arranger and Book Runner (Term Loan Facility), Union Bank of California, N.A., as Co-Syndication Agent (Term Loan Facility) and as Lead Arranger and Book Runner and as Syndication Agent (Revolving Credit Facility), Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., as Co-Documentation Agent (Term Loan Facility), UBS Securities LLC. as Co-Documentation Agent (Term Loan Facility), Societe General, as Co-Documentation Agent (Revolving Credit Facility), and The Banks Listed Herein. Incorporated by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended June 30, 2003.

 

10.21

 

Second Amended and Restated Pledge Agreement dated as of December 12, 2002 between AES EDC Funding II, L.L.C. and Citicorp USA, Inc., as Collateral Agent is herein incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 of the Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2002.

 

10.22

 

The AES Corporation 2004 Restoration Supplemental Retirement Plan is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

10.23

 

Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of March 17, 2004 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation , the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS listed herein, the BANKS listed on the signature pages hereof, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., as Lead Arranger and Book Runner, BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC, as Lead Arranger and Book Runner and as Co-Syndication Agent, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC, as Lead Arranger and Book Runner, UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., as Co-Syndication Agent and as Lead Arranger and Book Runner and as Syndication Agent, LEHMAN COMMERCIAL PAPER INC., as Co-Documentation Agent, UBS SECURITIES LLC, as Co-Documentation Agent, SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, as Co-Documentation Agent, CREDIT LYONNAIS NEW YORK BRANCH, as Co-Documentation Agent, CITICORP USA, INC., as Administrative Agent for the Bank Parties and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2004.

 

10.24

 

Amendment No. 1 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of August 10, 2004 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 30, 2004.

 

10.25

 

Amendment No. 2 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of August 10, 2004June 23, 2005 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.2 of the Form 8-K filed on June 28, 2005.


10.26

 

Amendment No. 4 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of August 10, 2004September 28, 2005 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8-K filed on October 4, 2005.

 

10.27

 

Amendment No. 5 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of August 10, 2004September 30, 2005 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.2 of the Form 8-K filed on October 4, 2005.


10.28

 

Amendment No. 6 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of August 10, 2004October 15, 2005 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8-K filed on October 19, 2005.

 

10.29

 

Credit Agreement dated as of March 31, 2006 among The AES Corporation as Borrower, Merrill Lynch Capital Corporation as Administrative Agent, Merrill Lynch & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, as Lead Arranger is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8-K filed on April 3, 2006.

 

12.110.30

 

Amendment No.  7 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of April 5, 2006 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8-K filed on April 5, 2006.

10.31

Amendment No.  8 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of December 6, 2006 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8-K filed on January 5, 2007.

10.32

Amendment No.  9 To Third Amended And Restated Credit And Reimbursement Agreement dated as of December 29, 2006 among THE AES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS, the BANK PARTIES, CITICORP USA, INC., as administrative agent and CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral Agent, for the Bank Parties is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 99.2 of the Form 8-K filed on January 5, 2007.

10.33

The AES Corporation International Retirement Plan (filed herewith).

10.34

The AES Corporation Severance Plan dated as of June 1, 2006 (filed herewith). 

10.35

The definitive agreement between Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.  and The AES Corporation and AES Shannon Holdings B.V.  dated February 15, 2007 is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8-K filed on February 27, 2007.

12.1

 

Statement of computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges (filed herewith).

 

21.1

 

Subsidiaries of The AES Corporation (filed herewith).

 

23.1

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP (filed herewith).

 

24

 

Power of Attorney (filed herewith).


31.1

 

Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Paul Hanrahan (filed herewith).

 

31.2

 

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Victoria D. Harker (filed herewith).

 

32.1

 

Section 1350 Certification of Paul Hanrahan (filed herewith).

 

32.2

 

Section 1350 Certification of Victoria D. Harker (filed herewith).


*                    indicates management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as exhibits pursuant to Item 15(b) of this report.

(c)           Schedules.

Schedule I—Condensed Financial Information of Registrant

Schedule II—Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

175256




SIGNATURESSIGNATURES

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

 

THE AES CORPORATION

 

 

(Company)

Date: April 4, 2006May 23, 2007

 

By:

 

/s/ PAUL HANRAHAN

 

 

 

 

Name: Paul Hanrahan

 

 

President, Chief Executive Officer

 

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

Name

 

Title

 

Date

 

*

 

Chairman of the Board and Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Richard Darman

 

 

 

 

*

 

President, Chief Executive Officer

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Paul Hanrahan

 

(Principal Executive Officer) and Director

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Kristina M. Johnson

 

 

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

John A. Koskinen

 

 

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Philip Lader

 

 

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

John H. McArthur

 

 

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Sandra O. Moose

 

 

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Philip A. Odeen

 

 

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Charles O. Rossotti

 

 

 

 

*

 

Director

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Sven Sandstrom

*

Director

April 4, 2006

Roger W. Sant

 

 

 

 

/s/ VICTORIA D. HARKER

 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

Victoria D. Harker

 

(Principal Financial Officer)

 

 

/s/ CATHERINE FREEMAN

 

Vice President and Controller

 

 

Catherine Freeman

 

(Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

 

*By:

 

/s/ BRIAN A. MILLER

 

April 4, 2006

May 23, 2007

 

Attorney-in-fact

 

 

 

176257




THE AES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

Schedule I—Condensed Financial Information of Registrant

 

S-2

 

Schedule II—Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

 

S-9

 

 

Schedules other than those listed above are omitted as the information is either not applicable, not required, or has been furnished in the financial statements or notes thereto included in Item 8 hereof.

S-1S-1




THE AES CORPORATION
SCHEDULE I CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT
UNCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(IN MILLIONS)

 

December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

(restated)(1)

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

262

 

 

$

287

 

 

 

$

238

 

 

$

262

 

 

Restricted cash

 

6

 

 

4

 

 

 

8

 

 

6

 

 

Accounts and notes receivable from subsidiaries

 

1,012

 

 

1,097

 

 

 

895

 

 

1,014

 

 

Deferred income taxes

 

28

 

 

20

 

 

 

20

 

 

28

 

 

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

 

7

 

 

6

 

 

 

38

 

 

7

 

 

Total current assets

 

1,315

 

 

1,414

 

 

 

1,199

 

 

1,317

 

 

Investment in and advances to subsidiaries and affiliates

 

4,528

 

 

3,971

 

 

 

5,827

 

 

4,494

 

 

Office Equipment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost

 

43

 

 

29

 

 

 

55

 

 

39

 

 

Accumulated depreciation

 

(12

)

 

(6

)

 

 

(18

)

 

(12

)

 

Office equipment, net

 

31

 

 

23

 

 

 

37

 

 

27

 

 

Other Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deferred financing costs (less accumulated amortization: 2005, $47; 2004, $41)

 

84

 

 

96

 

 

Deferred financing costs (less accumulated amortization: 2006, $60, 2005, $47)

 

76

 

 

84

 

 

Deferred income taxes

 

769

 

 

754

 

 

 

799

 

 

773

 

 

Other assets

 

113

 

 

 

 

Total other assets

 

853

 

 

850

 

 

 

988

 

 

857

 

 

Total

 

$

6,727

 

 

$

6,258

 

 

 

$

8,051

 

 

$

6,695

 

 

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

$

4

 

 

$

3

 

 

 

$

1

 

 

$

4

 

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

174

 

 

131

 

 

 

221

 

 

174

 

 

Term loan—current portion

 

200

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

Junior notes and debentures payable—current portion

 

 

 

142

 

 

Total current liabilities

 

378

 

 

276

 

 

 

222

 

 

378

 

 

Long-term Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Term loan

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

 

Senior notes payable

 

3,838

 

 

3,854

 

 

 

3,859

 

 

3,838

 

 

Senior subordinated notes and debentures payable

 

113

 

 

225

 

 

 

 

 

113

 

 

Junior subordinated notes and debentures payable

 

731

 

 

731

 

 

 

731

 

 

731

 

 

Other long-term liabilities

 

18

 

 

16

 

 

 

3

 

 

9

 

 

Total long-term liabilities

 

4,700

 

 

5,026

 

 

 

4,793

 

 

4,691

 

 

Stockholders’ equity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock

 

7

 

 

7

 

 

 

7

 

 

7

 

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

6,517

 

 

6,434

 

 

 

6,654

 

 

6,561

 

 

Accumulated loss

 

(1,214

)

 

(1,844

)

 

 

(1,025

)

 

(1,286

)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

(3,661

)

 

(3,641

)

 

 

(2,600

)

 

(3,656

)

 

Total stockholders’ equity

 

1,649

 

 

956

 

 

 

3,036

 

 

1,626

 

 

Total

 

$

6,727

 

 

$

6,258

 

 

 

$

8,051

 

 

$

6,695

 

 


(1)          See note 1 to Schedule I related to restated unconsolidated financial statements.

See notesNotes to Schedule I.

S-2





THE AES CORPORATION
SCHEDULE I CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT
STATEMENTS OF UNCONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS
(IN MILLIONS)

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

 

(restated)(1)

 

(restated)(1)

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Revenues from subsidiaries and affiliates

 

$

39

 

 

$

42

 

 

 

$

42

 

 

 

$

38

 

 

$

39

 

 

 

$

42

 

 

Equity in earnings (losses) of subsidiaries and affiliates

 

1,125

 

 

609

 

 

 

(523

)

 

 

895

 

 

1,108

 

 

 

610

 

 

Interest income

 

54

 

 

54

 

 

 

258

 

 

 

48

 

 

54

 

 

 

47

 

 

General and Administrative expenses

 

(173

)

 

(188

)

 

 

(14

)

 

General and administrative expenses

 

(293

)

 

(178

)

 

 

(186

)

 

Interest expense

 

(439

)

 

(491

)

 

 

(525

)

 

 

(444

)

 

(441

)

 

 

(484

)

 

Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

606

 

 

26

 

 

 

(762

)

 

 

244

 

 

582

 

 

 

29

 

 

Cumulative effect of accounting change

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Income (loss) before income taxes

 

607

 

 

26

 

 

 

(762

)

 

 

244

 

 

583

 

 

 

29

 

 

Income tax benefit

 

23

 

 

272

 

 

 

310

 

 

 

17

 

 

22

 

 

 

271

 

 

Net income (loss)

 

$

630

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

(452

)

 

 

$

261

 

 

$

605

 

 

 

$

300

 

 


(1)          See note 1 to Schedule I related to restated unconsolidated financial statements.

See notesNotes to Schedule I.

S-3





THE AES CORPORATION
SCHEDULE I CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF REGISTRANT
STATEMENTS OF UNCONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(IN MILLIONS)

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

For the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

 

(restated)(1)

 

(restated)(1)

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

$

412

 

 

$

437

 

 

 

$

283

 

 

 

$

288

 

 

$

412

 

 

 

$

437

 

 

Investing Activities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proceeds from asset sales, net of expenses

 

2

 

 

13

 

 

 

1,112

 

 

 

120

 

 

2

 

 

 

13

 

 

Investment in and advances to subsidiaries

 

(148

)

 

(477

)

 

 

(609

)

 

 

(337

)

 

(148

)

 

 

(477

)

 

Acquisitions-net of cash acquired

 

(85

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(103

)

 

(85

)

 

 

 

 

Return of capital

 

57

 

 

127

 

 

 

242

 

 

Returned of capital

 

10

 

 

57

 

 

 

127

 

 

Increase in restricted cash

 

(3

)

 

(4

)

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

(3

)

 

 

(4

)

 

Additions to property, plant and equipment

 

(30

)

 

(27

)

 

 

(11

)

 

 

(37

)

 

(30

)

 

 

(27

)

 

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

 

(207

)

 

(368

)

 

 

734

 

 

 

(348

)

 

(207

)

 

 

(368

)

 

Financing Activities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Repayments under the old revolver, net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Repayments) borrowings under the new revolver, net

 

 

 

 

 

 

(228

)

 

Borrowings of notes payable and other coupon bearing securities

 

5

 

 

491

 

 

 

2,504

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

491

 

 

Repayments of notes payable and other coupon bearing securities

 

(259

)

 

(1,140

)

 

 

(2,877

)

 

 

(150

)

 

(259

)

 

 

(1,140

)

 

Return of investment on equity capital contributions

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net

 

26

 

 

16

 

 

 

337

 

 

 

78

 

 

26

 

 

 

16

 

 

Payments for deferred financing costs

 

(2

)

 

(14

)

 

 

(76

)

 

 

(9

)

 

(2

)

 

 

(14

)

 

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities

 

(230

)

 

(647

)

 

 

(340

)

 

 

36

 

 

(230

)

 

 

(647

)

 

(Decrease)/Increase in cash and cash equivalents

 

(25

)

 

(578

)

 

 

677

 

 

 

(24

)

 

(25

)

 

 

(578

)

 

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning

 

287

 

 

865

 

 

 

188

 

 

 

262

 

 

287

 

 

 

865

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents, ending

 

$

262

 

 

$

287

 

 

 

$

865

 

 

 

$

238

 

 

$

262

 

 

 

$

287

 

 

Schedule of non-cash investing and financing activities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock issued for debt retirement

 

$

 

 

$

168

 

 

 

$

63

 

 

 

$

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

168

 

 


(1)          See note 1 to Schedule I related to restated unconsolidated financial statements.

See Notes to Schedule I.

S-4S-4




THE AES CORPORATION
SCHEDULE I
NOTES TO SCHEDULE I

1.   Application of Significant Accounting Principles

Accounting for Subsidiaries and Affiliates—AffiliatesThe AES Corporation (the “Company”) has accounted for the earnings of its subsidiaries on the equity method in the unconsolidated condensed financial information.

Revenues—RevenuesConstruction management fees earned by the parent from its consolidated subsidiaries are eliminated.

Income Taxes—TaxesThe unconsolidated income tax expense or benefit computed for the Company in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, reflects the tax assets and liabilities of the Company on a stand alone basis and the effect of filing a consolidated U.S. income tax return with certain other affiliated companies.

Accounts and Notes Receivable from Subsidiaries—SuchSubsidiaries—such amounts have been shown in current or long-term assets based on terms in agreements with subsidiaries, but payment is dependent upon meeting conditions precedent in the subsidiary loan agreements.

RESTATEMENT

RESTATEMENT— Subsequent to filing its restated annual report on Form 10-K/ADuring the fourth quarter 2006, in conjunction with the Securities Exchange Commission on January 19, 2006, the Company discovered its previously issued restated annual report includedcontinued remediation of our material weaknesses and overall strengthening of controls, The AES Corporation (the “Company”) identified certain errors in accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities, minority interest expense and income taxes. The errors in accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities resulted in differences in previously issued consolidated interim financial statements for certain quarterly periods in 2004 sufficient to require restatement of prior period interim results. The errors in accounting for income taxes and minority interest expensewhich required the restatement of previously issued consolidated annualunconsolidated financial statements.

Based upon management’s review it has been determined that thesestatements for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004. The restatement adjustments resulted in a decrease to previously reported net income of $25 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an increase of $2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. These adjustments were largely the result of reversing, interim errors which were inadvertent and unintentional. The errors relatenot previously considered material either to the following areas:interim period in which they were corrected or the prior period to which they actually arose.

A.              Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The restatement also included share-based compensation adjustments. The Company determined that it failed to perform adequate on-going effectiveness testingrecently concluded an internal review of accounting for three interest rate cash flow hedges and one foreign currency cash flow hedge during 2004 as required by SFAS No. 133. As a result, the Company should have discontinued hedge accounting and recognized changesshare-based compensation (the “LTC Review”), which originally was disclosed in the fair value of the derivative instruments in earnings prospectively from the last valid effectiveness assessment until the earlier of either (1) the expiration of the derivative instrument or (2) the re-designation of the derivative instrument as a hedging activity.

B.               Income Tax and Minority Interest Adjustments

Company’s Form 8-K filed on February 26, 2007. As a result of the Company’s year end closing review process,LTC Review, the Company discoveredidentified certain other errors relatedin its previous accounting for share-based compensation. These errors required adjustments to the recordingCompany’s previous accounting for these awards under the guidance of income tax liabilitiesAccounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation and in one case, the associated impact on minority interest expense. The adjustments include:FASB Statement No. 123R (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment.

·An increase in income tax expense related to the recording of certain historical withholding tax liabilities at one of our El Salvador subsidiaries;

·An increase in minority interest expense related to a correction of the allocation of income tax expense to minority shareholders. This allocation pertained to certain deferred tax adjustments recorded in the original restatement at one of our Brazilian generating companies; and

S-5




·A reduction of 2004 income tax expense related to adjustments derived from income tax returns filed in 2005.

The following tables set forth the previously reported and restated amounts of selected items within Schedule I condensed financial statement information for the yearyears ended December 31, 2004.2005 and December 31, 2004:


Selected Unconsolidated Balance Sheet Data:

 

December 31, 2004

 

 

December 31, 2005

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

(in millions)

 

Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts and notes receivable from subsidiaries

 

 

1,012

 

 

 

1,014

 

 

Total current assets

 

 

1,315

 

 

 

1,317

 

 

Investment in and advances to subsidiaries and affiliates

 

 

$

4,004

 

 

 

$

3,971

 

 

 

 

4,528

 

 

 

4,494

 

 

Office equipment, cost

 

 

43

 

 

 

39

 

 

Office equipment, net

 

 

31

 

 

 

27

 

 

Deferred income taxes

 

 

$

747

 

 

 

$

754

 

 

 

 

769

 

 

 

773

 

 

Total other assets

 

 

$

843

 

 

 

$

850

 

 

 

 

853

 

 

 

857

 

 

Total assets

 

 

$

6,284

 

 

 

$

6,258

 

 

 

 

6,727

 

 

 

6,695

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

 

$

141

 

 

 

$

131

 

 

Total current liabilities

 

 

$

286

 

 

 

$

276

 

 

Other long-term liabilities

 

 

18

 

 

 

9

 

 

Total long-term liabilities

 

 

4,700

 

 

 

4,691

 

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

 

$

6,423

 

 

 

$

6,434

 

 

 

 

6,517

 

 

 

6,561

 

 

Accumulated loss

 

 

$

(1,815

)

 

 

$

(1,844

)

 

 

 

(1,214

)

 

 

(1,286

)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

$

(3,643

)

 

 

$

(3,641

)

 

 

 

(3,661

)

 

 

(3,656

)

 

Total stockholders' equity

 

 

$

972

 

 

 

$

956

 

 

Total liabilities and stockholders' equity

 

 

$

6,284

 

 

 

$

6,258

 

 

Total stockholders equity

 

 

1,649

 

 

 

1,626

 

 

Total liabilities & stockholders equity

 

 

6,727

 

 

 

6,695

 

 

 

Selected Statement of Unconsolidated Operations Data:

 

For the Year Ended December 31,

 

 

For the Year Ended

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

December 31, 2004

 

December 31, 2003

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

(in millions)

 

Equity in earnings (losses) of subsidiaries and affiliates

 

 

$

608

 

 

 

$

609

 

 

 

$

(503

)

 

 

$

(523

)

 

 

 

1,125

 

 

1,108

 

 

 

609

 

 

 

610

 

 

Interest income

 

 

54

 

 

54

 

 

 

54

 

 

 

47

 

 

General and Administrative expenses

 

 

(173

)

 

 

(178

)

 

 

(188

)

 

 

(186

)

 

Interest expense

 

 

(439

)

 

 

(441

)

 

 

(491

)

 

 

(484

)

 

Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

606

 

 

582

 

 

 

26

 

 

 

29

 

 

Income (loss) before income taxes

 

 

$

25

 

 

 

$

26

 

 

 

$

(742

)

 

 

$

(762

)

 

 

 

607

 

 

583

 

 

 

26

 

 

 

29

 

 

Income tax (expense) benefit

 

 

$

267

 

 

 

$

272

 

 

 

$

307

 

 

 

$

310

 

 

 

 

23

 

 

22

 

 

 

272

 

 

 

271

 

 

Net income (loss)

 

 

$

292

 

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

(435

)

 

 

$

(452

)

 

 

 

630

 

 

605

 

 

 

298

 

 

 

300

 

 

 

Selected Unconsolidated Cash Flows Data:

 

 

For the Year Ended

 

 

 

December 31, 2004

 

December 31, 2003

 

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

Schedule of non-cash investing and financing activities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock issued for debt retirement

 

 

$

168

 

 

 

$

168

 

 

 

$

48

 

 

 

$

63

 

 


S-6




2.   Notes Payable

 

 

 

Final

 

First Call

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final

 

First Call

 

December 31,

 

 

Interest Rate(1)

 

Maturity

 

Date(2)

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

Interest Rate

 

Maturity

 

Date(1)

 

2006

 

2005

 

Senior Secured Term Loan

 

LIBOR + 2.25%

 

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Senior Secured Term Loan(3)

 

LIBOR + 1.75%

 

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

LIBOR + 1.75

%

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

200

 

Senior Secured Notes

 

8.75%

 

 

2013

 

 

 

 

 

1,200

 

1,200

 

 

8.750

%

 

2013

 

 

 

 

 

1,200

 

1,200

 

Senior Secured Notes

 

9.00%

 

 

2015

 

 

 

 

 

600

 

600

 

 

9.000

%

 

2015

 

 

 

 

 

600

 

600

 

Senior Notes

 

8.75%

 

 

2008

 

 

 

 

 

202

 

202

 

 

8.750

%

 

2008

 

 

 

 

 

202

 

202

 

Senior Notes

 

9.50%

 

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

467

 

467

 

 

9.500

%

 

2009

 

 

 

 

 

467

 

467

 

Senior Notes

 

9.375%

 

 

2010

 

 

 

 

 

423

 

423

 

 

9.375

%

 

2010

 

 

 

 

 

423

 

423

 

Senior Notes

 

8.875%

 

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

307

 

307

 

 

8.875

%

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

307

 

307

 

Senior Notes

 

8.375%

 

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

165

 

 

8.375

%

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

168

 

148

 

Senior Notes

 

7.750%

 

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

500

 

500

 

 

7.750

%

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

500

 

500

 

Senior Subordinated Notes

 

8.50%

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

112

 

Senior Subordinated Debentures

 

8.875%

 

 

2027

 

 

 

2004

 

 

115

 

115

 

 

8.875

%

 

2027

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

115

 

Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures

 

4.50%

 

 

2005

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

142

 

 

6.000

%

 

2008

 

 

 

 

 

213

 

213

 

Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures

 

6.00%

 

 

2008

 

 

 

 

 

213

 

213

 

 

6.750

%

 

2029

 

 

 

 

 

517

 

517

 

Convertible Junior Subordinated Debentures

 

6.75%

 

 

2029

 

 

 

 

 

517

 

517

 

Unamortized discounts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(10

)

(11

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(7

)

(10

)

SUBTOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4,882

 

5,152

 

Less: Current maturities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(200

)

(142

)

SUBTOTAL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4,790

 

4,882

 

Less: Current maturities(2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(200

)

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

4,682

 

$

5,010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

4,790

 

$

4,682

 


(1)          Interest rate at December 31, 2005. Weighted average LIBOR rates at December 31, 2005 and 2004 were 3.63% and 2.10%, respectively.

(2)          The first call date represents the date that the Company, at its option, can call the related debt.

(3)(2)          This loan is currentlySenior Secured Term Loan was classified as a current portionmaturity as of debt asDecember 31, 2005, because the amount isloan was in default at Decemberas of March 31, 2005.2006.

FUTURE MATURITIES OF DEBT—Scheduled maturities of total debt for continuing operations at December 31, 2005 are (in millions):2006 are:

2006

 

$

200

 

2007

 

 

 

 

$

 

 

2008

 

415

 

 

 

415

 

 

2009

 

467

 

 

 

467

 

 

2010

 

423

 

 

 

423

 

 

2011

 

 

674

 

 

Thereafter

 

3,377

 

 

 

2,811

 

 

Total

 

$

4,882

 

 

 

$

4,790

 

 

 

3.   Dividends from Subsidiaries and Affiliates

Cash dividends received from consolidated subsidiaries and from affiliates accounted for by the equity method were as follows (in millions):follows:

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

(in millions)

 

Subsidiaries

 

$

741

 

$

824

 

$

807

 

 

$

808

 

$

741

 

$

824

 

Affiliates

 

32

 

29

 

43

 

 

19

 

32

 

29

 

 

S-7




4.   Guarantees and Letters of Credit

GUARANTEES—In connection with certain of its project financing, acquisition, and power purchase agreements, the Company has expressly undertaken limited obligations and commitments, most of which will only be effective or will be terminated upon the occurrence of future events. These obligations and


commitments, excluding those collateralized by letter of credit and other obligations discussed below, were limited as of December 31, 2005,2006, by the terms of the agreements, to an aggregate of approximately $507$533 million representing 3432 agreements with individual exposures ranging from less than $1 million up to $100 million.

LETTERS OF CREDIT—At December 31, 2005,2006, the Company had $294$461 million in letters of credit outstanding representing 1820 agreements with individual exposures ranging from less than $1 million up to $74$333 million, which operate to guarantee performance relating to certain project development and construction activities and subsidiary operations. The Company pays letter of credit fees ranging from 0.15%1.63% to 2.75%2.64 % per annum on the outstanding amounts. In addition, the Company had $1 million in surety bonds outstanding at December 31, 2005

S-82006.





THE AES CORPORATION
SCHEDULE II
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
(IN MILLIONS)

 

Additions

 

Deductions

 

 

Additions

 

Deductions

 

 

Balance at

 

Charged to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at

 

 

Balance at

 

Charged

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beginning

 

Costs and

 

Acquisitions

 

Translation

 

Amounts

 

End of

 

 

Beginning

 

to Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at

 

 

of Period

 

Expenses

 

of Business

 

Adjustment

 

Written Off

 

Period

 

 

of the

 

and

 

Acquisitions

 

Translation

 

Amounts

 

the End of

 

Allowance for accounts receivables (current and noncurrent):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year ended December 31, 2003

 

 

352

 

 

 

57

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

(121

)

 

 

342

 

 

 

Period

 

Expenses

 

of Business

 

Adjustment

 

Written off

 

the Period

 

Allowance for accounts receivables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(current and noncurrent)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year ended December 31, 2004

 

 

342

 

 

 

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

24

 

 

 

(53

)

 

 

382

 

 

 

 

$

340

 

 

 

$

69

 

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

24

 

 

 

$

(53

)

 

 

$

380

 

 

Year ended December 31, 2005

 

 

382

 

 

 

317

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

 

 

(234

)

 

 

504

 

 

 

 

380

 

 

 

317

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

 

 

(234

)

 

 

$

502

 

 

Year ended December 31, 2006

 

 

502

 

 

 

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

 

 

 

(305

)

 

 

$

337

 

 

 

S-9S-9



THE AES CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWSCONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006, 2005, AND 2004

 

 

     2005     

 

   2004   

 

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

(in millions, except share data)

 

ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CURRENT ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

 

$

1,390

 

 

 

$

1,281

 

 

Restricted cash

 

 

420

 

 

 

395

 

 

Short-term investments

 

 

203

 

 

 

268

 

 

Accounts receivable, net of reserves of $279 and $303 respectively

 

 

1,615

 

 

 

1,530

 

 

Inventory

 

 

460

 

 

 

418

 

 

Receivable from affiliates

 

 

2

 

 

 

8

 

 

Deferred income taxes—current

 

 

267

 

 

 

218

 

 

Prepaid expenses

 

 

119

 

 

 

87

 

 

Other current assets

 

 

756

 

 

 

781

 

 

Total current assets

 

 

5,232

 

 

 

4,986

 

 

NONCURRENT ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property, Plant and Equipment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land

 

 

860

 

 

 

788

 

 

Electric generation and distribution assets

 

 

22,440

 

 

 

21,729

 

 

Accumulated depreciation

 

 

(6,087

)

 

 

(5,259

)

 

Construction in progress

 

 

1,441

 

 

 

919

 

 

Property, plant and equipment, net

 

 

18,654

 

 

 

18,177

 

 

Other assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deferred financing costs, net of accumulated amortization of $222 and $174, respectively

 

 

294

 

 

 

343

 

 

Investment in and advances to affiliates

 

 

670

 

 

 

655

 

 

Debt service reserves and other deposits

 

 

611

 

 

 

737

 

 

Goodwill, net

 

 

1,428

 

 

 

1,419

 

 

Deferred income taxes—noncurrent

 

 

807

 

 

 

774

 

 

Other assets

 

 

1,736

 

 

 

1,832

 

 

Total other assets

 

 

5,546

 

 

 

5,760

 

 

TOTAL ASSETS

 

 

$

29,432

 

 

 

$

28,923

 

 

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CURRENT LIABILITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

 

$

1,104

 

 

 

$

1,081

 

 

Accrued interest

 

 

382

 

 

 

335

 

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

 

2,122

 

 

 

1,707

 

 

Recourse debt-current portion

 

 

200

 

 

 

142

 

 

Non-recourse debt-current portion

 

 

1,598

 

 

 

1,619

 

 

Total current liabilities

 

 

5,406

 

 

 

4,884

 

 

LONG-TERM LIABILITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-recourse debt

 

 

11,226

 

 

 

11,817

 

 

Recourse debt

 

 

4,682

 

 

 

5,010

 

 

Deferred income taxes-noncurrent

 

 

721

 

 

 

678

 

 

Pension liabilities and other post-retirement liabilities

 

 

857

 

 

 

891

 

 

Other long-term liabilities

 

 

3,280

 

 

 

3,382

 

 

Total long-term liabilities

 

 

20,766

 

 

 

21,778

 

 

Minority Interest

 

 

1,611

 

 

 

1,305

 

 

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities (see Notes 10 and 11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock ($.01 par value, 1,200,000,000 shares authorized; 655,882,836 and 650,093,402 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively) 

 

 

7

 

 

 

7

 

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

 

6,517

 

 

 

6,434

 

 

Accumulated deficit

 

 

(1,214

)

 

 

(1,844

)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

(3,661

)

 

 

(3,641

)

 

Total stockholders’ equity

 

 

1,649

 

 

 

956

 

 

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

 

 

$

29,432

 

 

 

$

28,923

 

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

 

 

(Restated) (1)

 

(Restated) (1)

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

$

261

 

 

$

605

 

 

 

$

300

 

 

Adjustments to net income:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation and amortization of intangible assets

 

933

 

 

864

 

 

 

777

 

 

Loss from sale of investments and goodwill and asset impairment expense

 

491

 

 

49

 

 

 

74

 

 

Loss (gain) on disposal and impairment write-down associated with discontinued oper ations

 

62

 

 

 

 

 

(98

)

 

Provision for deferred taxes

 

(37

)

 

135

 

 

 

208

 

 

Minority interest expense

 

611

 

 

373

 

 

 

211

 

 

Contingencies

 

173

 

 

(10

)

 

 

28

 

 

Loss (gain) on the extinguishment of debt

 

148

 

 

1

 

 

 

(59

)

 

Other

 

58

 

 

132

 

 

 

297

 

 

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable

 

84

 

 

(29

)

 

 

(124

)

 

Increase in inventory

 

(24

)

 

(70

)

 

 

(32

)

 

Decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets

 

8

 

 

94

 

 

 

51

 

 

Decrease (increase) in other assets

 

165

 

 

84

 

 

 

(51

)

 

(Decrease) increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities

 

(400

)

 

(119

)

 

 

64

 

 

(Decrease) increase in other liabilities

 

(122

)

 

45

 

 

 

(38

)

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

2,411

 

 

2,154

 

 

 

1,608

 

 

INVESTING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Expenditures

 

(1,460

)

 

(826

)

 

 

(706

)

 

Acquisitions—net of cash acquired

 

(19

)

 

(85

)

 

 

(20

)

 

Proceeds from the sales of businesses

 

898

 

 

22

 

 

 

35

 

 

Proceeds from the sales of assets

 

24

 

 

26

 

 

 

28

 

 

Sale of short-term investments

 

2,011

 

 

1,499

 

 

 

1,402

 

 

Purchase of short-term investments

 

(2,359

)

 

(1,345

)

 

 

(1,388

)

 

(Increase) decrease in restricted cash

 

(8

)

 

94

 

 

 

(43

)

 

Purchase of emission allowances

 

(77

)

 

(19

)

 

 

(5

)

 

Proceeds from the sales of emission allowances

 

82

 

 

42

 

 

 

3

 

 

Decrease (increase) in debt service reserves and other assets

 

46

 

 

(100

)

 

 

(63

)

 

Purchase of long-term available-for-sale securities

 

(52

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other investing

 

12

 

 

31

 

 

 

14

 

 

Net cash used in investing activities

 

(902

)

 

(661

)

 

 

(743

)

 

FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Borrowings under the revolving credit facilities, net

 

72

 

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

Issuance of recourse debt

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

491

 

 

Issuance of non-recourse debt

 

3,097

 

 

1,710

 

 

 

2,110

 

 

Repayments of recourse debt

 

(150

)

 

(259

)

 

 

(1,140

)

 

Repayments of non-recourse debt

 

(4,059

)

 

(2,651

)

 

 

(2,534

)

 

Payments for deferred financing costs

 

(86

)

 

(21

)

 

 

(109

)

 

Distributions to minority interests

 

(335

)

 

(186

)

 

 

(139

)

 

Contributions from minority interests

 

125

 

 

1

 

 

 

24

 

 

Issuance of common stock

 

78

 

 

26

 

 

 

16

 

 

Financed capital expenditures

 

(52

)

 

(1

)

 

 

(6

)

 

Other financing

 

(7

)

 

(16

)

 

 

2

 

 

Net cash used in financing activities

 

(1,317

)

 

(1,339

)

 

 

(1,285

)

 

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash

 

62

 

 

13

 

 

 

6

 

 

Total increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

254

 

 

167

 

 

 

(414

)

 

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning

 

1,321

 

 

1,154

 

 

 

1,568

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents, ending

 

$

1,575

 

 

$

1,321

 

 

 

$

1,154

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash payments for interest, net of amounts capitalized

 

$

1,718

 

 

$

1,674

 

 

 

$

1,759

 

 

Cash payments for income taxes, net of refunds

 

$

479

 

 

$

268

 

 

 

$

197

 

 

SCHEDULE OF NONCASH INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock issued for debt retirement (See Note 14)

 

$

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

168

 

 

Brasiliana Energia debt exchange (See Note 14)

 

$

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

773

 

 

Transfer of Infoenergy to Brasiliana

 

$

13

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

IQP - Buyer's assumption of debt (See Note 20)

 

$

30

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 


(1)             See Note 1 related to the restated consolidated financial statements.statements

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

102





THE AES CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONSCHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006, 2005, 2004 AND 20032004

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

Revenues:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulated

 

$

5,737

 

 

$

4,897

 

 

 

$

4,425

 

 

Non-Regulated

 

5,349

 

 

4,566

 

 

 

3,988

 

 

Total revenues

 

11,086

 

 

9,463

 

 

 

8,413

 

 

Cost of Sales:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulated

 

(4,500

)

 

(3,781

)

 

 

(3,449

)

 

Non-Regulated

 

(3,408

)

 

(2,900

)

 

 

(2,505

)

 

Total cost of sales

 

(7,908

)

 

(6,681

)

 

 

(5,954

)

 

Gross margin

 

3,178

 

 

2,782

 

 

 

2,459

 

 

General and administrative expenses

 

(221

)

 

(182

)

 

 

(157

)

 

Interest expense

 

(1,896

)

 

(1,932

)

 

 

(1,984

)

 

Interest income

 

391

 

 

282

 

 

 

280

 

 

Other income, net

 

19

 

 

12

 

 

 

65

 

 

Loss on sale of investments and asset impairment expense

 

 

 

(45

)

 

 

(201

)

 

Goodwill impairment expense

 

 

 

 

 

 

(11

)

 

Foreign currency transaction (losses) gains on net monetary position 

 

(89

)

 

(165

)

 

 

99

 

 

Equity in earnings of affiliates

 

76

 

 

70

 

 

 

94

 

 

INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES AND MINORITY INTEREST

 

1,458

 

 

822

 

 

 

644

 

 

Income tax expense

 

(465

)

 

(359

)

 

 

(211

)

 

Minority interest expense

 

(361

)

 

(199

)

 

 

(139

)

 

INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS

 

632

 

 

264

 

 

 

294

 

 

Income (loss) from operations of discontinued businesses (net of income tax benefit of $0, $36 and $75, respectively)

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

(787

)

 

INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGE

 

632

 

 

298

 

 

 

(493

)

��

Cumulative effect of accounting change (net of income tax (benefit) expense of $(1), $0 and $22, respectively)

 

(2

)

 

 

 

 

41

 

 

Net income (loss)

 

$

630

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

(452

)

 

BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

$

0.96

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

 

0.06

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

Cumulative effect of accounting change

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

$

0.96

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

 

$

(0.76

)

 

DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

$

0.95

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

Cumulative effect of accounting change

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

$

0.95

 

 

$

0.46

 

 

 

$

(0.76

)

 


(1)          See Note 1 related to the restated consolidated financial statements.

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

103




THE AES CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005, 2004 AND 2003

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

2003

 

 

 

 

 

(Restated)(1)

 

(Restated)(1)

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income (loss)

 

$

630

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

(452

)

 

Adjustments to net income (loss):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation and amortization of intangible assets

 

889

 

 

799

 

 

 

755

 

 

Loss from sale of investments and goodwill and asset impairment expense

 

43

 

 

45

 

 

 

215

 

 

Gain (loss) on disposal and impairment write-down associated with discontinued operations

 

 

 

(98

)

 

 

686

 

 

Provision for deferred taxes

 

100

 

 

190

 

 

 

(89

)

 

Minority interest expense

 

361

 

 

199

 

 

 

139

 

 

Other

 

92

 

 

322

 

 

 

(123

)

 

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable

 

26

 

 

(128

)

 

 

(101

)

 

Increase in inventory

 

(73

)

 

(33

)

 

 

(2

)

 

Decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets

 

41

 

 

7

 

 

 

180

 

 

(Decrease) increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities

 

(79

)

 

78

 

 

 

576

 

 

Other assets and liabilities

 

135

 

 

(108

)

 

 

(142

)

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

2,165

 

 

1,571

 

 

 

1,642

 

 

INVESTING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property additions

 

(1,143

)

 

(892

)

 

 

(1,228

)

 

Acquisitions—net of cash acquired

 

(85

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proceeds from the sales of assets

 

26

 

 

63

 

 

 

1,086

 

 

Sale of short-term investments

 

1,496

 

 

1,387

 

 

 

1,970

 

 

Purchase of short-term investments

 

(1,344

)

 

(1,371

)

 

 

(1,972

)

 

Decrease (increase) in restricted cash

 

58

 

 

(32

)

 

 

(214

)

 

Proceeds from the sale of emisson allowances

 

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decrease (increase) in debt service reserves and other assets

 

68

 

 

(151

)

 

 

(28

)

 

Other investing

 

10

 

 

(29

)

 

 

(14

)

 

Net cash used in investing activities

 

(873

)

 

(1,025

)

 

 

(400

)

 

FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Borrowings (repayments) under the revolving credit facilities, net

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

(228

)

 

Issuance of recourse debt

 

5

 

 

491

 

 

 

2,503

 

 

Issuance of non-recourse debt and other coupon bearing securities

 

1,884

 

 

2,449

 

 

 

2,111

 

 

Repayments of recourse debt

 

(259

)

 

(1,140

)

 

 

(2,877

)

 

Repayments of non-recourse debt and other coupon bearing securities

 

(2,682

)

 

(2,534

)

 

 

(2,039

)

 

Payments for deferred financing costs

 

(21

)

 

(109

)

 

 

(146

)

 

Distributions to minority interests

 

(186

)

 

(139

)

 

 

(50

)

 

Contributions from minority interests

 

1

 

 

28

 

 

 

38

 

 

Issuance of common stock

 

26

 

 

16

 

 

 

337

 

 

Other financing

 

(16

)

 

2

 

 

 

(2

)

 

Net cash used in financing activities

 

(1,195

)

 

(936

)

 

 

(353

)

 

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash

 

12

 

 

8

 

 

 

34

 

 

Total increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

109

 

 

(382

)

 

 

923

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning

 

1,281

 

 

1,663

 

 

 

740

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents, ending

 

$

1,390

 

 

$

1,281

 

 

 

$

1,663

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash payments for interest, net of amounts capitalized

 

$

1,674

 

 

$

1,759

 

 

 

$

1,827

 

 

Cash payments for income taxes, net of refunds

 

268

 

 

197

 

 

 

177

 

 

SCHEDULE OF NONCASH INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common stock issued for debt retirement

 

 

 

168

 

 

 

63

 

 

Liabilities relieved due to sale of assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,296

 

 

Brasiliana Energia debt exchange (See Note 14)

 

 

 

773

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common Stock

 

Additional
 Paid-In

 

Retained 
Earnings 
(Accumulated

 

Other 
Comprehensive
Accumulated 

 

Comprehensive

 

 

 

Shares

 

Amount

 

Capital

 

Deficit)

 

Loss

 

Income

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Balance at January 1, 2004 (As Restated) (1)

 

 

625.6

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

5,774

 

 

 

$

(2,191

)

 

 

$

(3,710

)

 

 

 

 

 

Net income (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

300

 

 

Subsidiary sale of stock

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

482

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment (net of reclassification to earnings of $(46) for the sale or write off of investments in foreign entities, net of income tax expense of $15) (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

 

 

 

85

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustment (net of income tax expense of $4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

 

 

 

18

 

 

Change in derivative fair value (including a reclassification to earnings of $88 million, net of tax, and an income tax benefit of $23) (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(34

)

 

 

(34

)

 

Comprehensive income (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

369

 

 

Issuance of common stock in exchange for cancellation of debt

 

 

19.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issuance of common stock under benefit plans and exercise of stock options and warrants (net of income tax benefit of $5 million)

 

 

4.8

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock compensation (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at December 31, 2004 (Restated) (1)

 

 

650.1

 

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

$

6,478

 

 

 

$

(1,891

)

 

 

$

(3,641

)

 

 

 

 

 

Net income (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

605

 

 

 

 

 

 

605

 

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment (net of reclassification to earnings of $1 for the sale or write off of investments in foreign entities, net of income tax benefit of $11) (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

 

 

 

72

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustment (net of income tax benefit of $10) (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(12

)

 

 

(12

)

 

Change in derivative fair value (including a reclassification to earnings of $153 million, net of income tax benefit of $105) (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(75

)

 

 

(75

)

 

Comprehensive income (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

590

 

 

Issuance of common stock under benefit plans and exercise of stock options and warrants (net of income tax benefit of $14 million)

 

 

5.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock compensation (Restated) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at December 31, 2005 (Restated) (1)

 

 

655.9

 

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

$

6,561

 

 

 

$

(1,286

)

 

 

$

(3,656

)

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

261

 

 

 

 

 

 

261

 

 

Subsidiary sale of stock

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(35

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in fair value of available for sale securities (net of income tax benefit of $2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3

)

 

 

(3

)

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment (net of income tax expense of $9)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

691

 

 

 

691

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustment (net of income tax expense of $2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in derivative fair value (including a reclassification to earnings of $(6) million, net of an income tax expense of $194)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

274

 

 

 

274

 

 

Effect of SFAS No. 158 (net of income tax expense of $60)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehensive income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

1,223

 

 

Issuance of common stock under benefit plans and exercise of stock options and warrants

 

 

9.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock compensation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at December 31, 2006

 

 

665.1

 

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

$

6,654

 

 

 

$

(1,025

)

 

 

$

(2,600

)

 

 

 

 

 


(1)             See Note 1 related to the restated consolidated financial statements.statements

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

104125




THE AES CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT)
YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005, 2004 AND 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Retained

 

Accumulated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional

 

Earnings

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

Common Stock

 

Paid-In

 

(Accumulated

 

Comprehensive

 

Comprehensive

 

 

 

Shares

 

Amount

 

Capital

 

Deficit)

 

Loss

 

Income

 

 

 

(Amounts in Millions)

 

Balance at January 1, 2003

 

 

557.9

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

 

$

5,314

 

 

 

$

(1,672

)

 

 

$

(4,503

)

 

 

 

 

 

Effect of restatement*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(18

)

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at January 1, 2003 (Restated)*

 

 

557.9

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

5,314

 

 

 

(1,690

)

 

 

(4,497

)

 

 

 

 

 

Net loss (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(452

)

 

 

 

 

 

$

(452

)

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment (net of reclassifications to earnings of $114 for the sale or write off of investments in foreign entities, no income tax effect) (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

366

 

 

 

366

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustment (net of income tax expense of $110)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

286

 

 

 

286

 

 

Change in derivative fair value (including a reclassification to earnings of $(124) million, net of income tax expense of $17) (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

140

 

 

Comprehensive income (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

340

 

 

Issuance of common stock through public offering

 

 

49.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

334

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issuance of common stock in exchange for cancellation of debt

 

 

12.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issuance of common stock under benefit plans and exercise of stock options and warrants

 

 

6.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock option expense

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at December 31, 2003 (Restated)*

 

 

625.6

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

5,739

 

 

 

(2,142

)

 

 

(3,705

)

 

 

 

 

 

Net income (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

298

 

 

 

 

 

 

298

 

 

Subsidiary sale of stock

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

473

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment (net of reclassifications to earnings of $(46) for the sale or write off of investments in foreign entities, no income tax effect) (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

 

 

 

110

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustment (net of income tax expense of $4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

 

 

 

18

 

 

Change in derivative fair value (including a reclassification to earnings of $(126) million, net of income tax benefit of $35) (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(64

)

 

 

(64

)

 

Comprehensive income (Restated)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

362

 

 

Issuance of common stock in exchange for cancellation of debt

 

 

19.7

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issuance of common stock under benefit plans and exercise of stock options and warrants

 

 

4.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock compensation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at December 31, 2004 (Restated)*

 

 

650.1

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

6,434

 

 

 

(1,844

)

 

 

(3,641

)

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

630

 

 

 

 

 

 

630

 

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment (net of reclassification to earnings of $1 for the sale or write off of investments in foreign entities, no income tax effect)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

 

 

 

57

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustment (net of income tax benefit of $10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(6

)

 

 

(6

)

 

Change in derivative fair value (including a reclassification to earnings of $(179) million, net of income tax benefit of $112)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(71

)

 

 

(71

)

 

Comprehensive income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

610

 

 

Issuance of common stock under benefit plans and exercise of stock options and warrants (net of income tax benefit of $14 million)

 

 

5.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock compensation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance at December 31, 2005

 

 

655.9

 

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

$

6,517

 

 

 

$

(1,214

)

 

 

$

(3,661

)

 

 

 

 

 


(*)See Note 1 related to the restated consolidated financial statements.

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

105




THE AES CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2006, 2005, 2004 AND 20032004

1.   GENERAL AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The AES Corporation is a holding company that through its subsidiaries and affiliates, (collectively, “AES” or “the Company,”Company”) operates a geographically diversified portfolio of electricity generation and distribution businesses.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION—CONSOLIDATIONThe consolidated financial statements of the Company include the accounts of The AES Corporation, its subsidiaries, and controlled affiliates. Furthermore, variable interest entities in which the Company has an interest have been consolidated where the Company is identified as the primary beneficiary. In all cases, AES holds a majority ownership interest in those variable interest entities that have been consolidated. Investments in which the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence but not control are accounted for using the equity method. All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

USE OF ESTIMATES—The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the Company to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Significant items subject to such estimates and assumptions include the carrying value and estimated useful lives of long-lived assets; impairment of goodwill and equity method investments; valuation allowances for receivables and deferred tax assets; the recoverability of deferred regulatory assets and the valuation of certain financial instruments, pension liabilities, environmental liabilities and potential litigation claims and settlements.

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS—The Company considers unrestricted cash on hand, deposits in banks, certificates of deposit, and short-term marketable securities with an original maturity of three months or less to be cash and cash equivalents.

RESTRICTED CASHRestricted cash includes cash and cash equivalents which are restricted as to withdrawal or usage. The nature of restrictions includes restrictions imposed by the financing agreements such as security deposits kept as collateral, debt service reserves, maintenance reserves, and others; as well as restrictions imposed by long-term power purchase agreements.

ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS—The Company maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated uncollectible accounts receivable. The allowance is based on the Company’s assessment of known delinquent accounts, historical experience, and other currently available evidence of the collectabilitycollectibility and the aging of accounts receivable.

INVESTMENTS—Short-term investments consist of investments with original maturities in excess of three months but less than one year.

Securities that the Company has both the positive intent and ability to hold to maturity are classified as held-to-maturity and are carried at historical cost. Other investments that the Company does not intend to hold to maturity are classified as available-for-sale or trading. Unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale investments are recorded as a separate component of stockholders’ equity. Investments classified as trading are marked to market on a periodic basis through the statement of operations. Interest and dividends on investments are reported in interest income. Gains and losses on sales of investments are recorded using the specific identification method.


EQUITY INVESTMENTS—Investments in which the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence but not control are accounted for using the equity method. The Company evaluates its equity


method investments for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of such investments may not be recoverable. The difference between the carrying value of the equity method investment and its estimated fair value is recognized as an impairment when the loss in value is deemed other than temporary.

In accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18, the Company discontinues the application of the equity method when an investment is reduced to zero and does not provide for additional losses when the Company does not guarantee the obligations of the investee or is not otherwise committed to provide further financial support for the investee. The Company resumes the application of the equity method if the investee subsequently reports net income to the extent that the Company’s share of such net income equals the share of net losses not recognized during the period the equity method was suspended.

PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT—Property, plant, and equipment is stated at cost. The cost of renewals and betterments that extend the useful life of property, plant and equipment are capitalized.

Construction progress payments, engineering costs, insurance costs, salaries, interest, and other costs relating to construction in progress are capitalized during the construction period, or expensed at the time the Company determines that development of a particular project is no longer probable. The continued capitalization of such costs is subject to ongoing risks related to successful completion, including those related to government approvals, siting, financing, construction, permitting, and contract compliance. Construction in progress balances are transferred to electric generation and distribution assets when each asset is ready for its intended use.

Depreciation, after consideration of salvage value and asset retirement obligations, is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated composite useful lives of the assets. Maintenance and repairs are charged to expense as incurred. Emergency and rotable spare parts inventories are included in electric generation and distribution assets when placed in service and are depreciated over the useful life of the related components.

DEFERRED FINANCING COSTS—Financing costs are deferred and amortized over the related financing period using the effective interest method or the straight-line method when it does not differ materially from the effective interest method.

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLES—In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”)SFAS No. 142, “GoodwillGoodwill and Other Intangible Assets, the Company recognizes goodwill for the excess of the cost of an acquired entity over the net amount assigned to assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The Company evaluates goodwill for impairment on an annual basis and whenever events or changes in circumstances occur that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value. The Company’s annual impairment testing date is October 1st. The Company accounts for emission allowance as intangible assets.

LONG-LIVED ASSETS—In accordance with SFAS No. 144, “AccountingAccounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, the Company evaluates the impairment of long-lived assets based on the projection of undiscounted cash flows when circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of such assets may not be recoverable or the assets meet the held for sale criteria under SFAS No. 144. These events or circumstances may include the relative pricing of wholesale electricity by region, and the anticipated demand and cost of fuel. If the carrying amount is not recoverable, an impairment charge is recorded for the amount by which the carrying value of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value. For regulated assets, an impairment charge could be offset by the establishment of a regulatory asset, if rate recovery was probable. For non-regulated assets, an impairment charge would be recorded as a charge against earnings.


The fair value of an asset is the amount at which that asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than a forced or liquidation sale. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and are used as the basis for measurement, if available. In


the absence of quoted market prices for identical or similar assets in active markets, fair value is estimated using various internal and external valuation methods including cash flow projections or other indicators of fair value such as bids received, comparable sales or independent appraisals.

In connection with the periodic evaluation of long-lived assets in accordance with the requirements of SFAS No. 144, the fair value of the asset can vary if different estimates and assumptions would have been used in our applied valuation techniques. In cases of impairment described in Note 16,17, we made our best estimate of fair value using valuation methods based on the most current information at that time. We have been in the process of divesting certain assets and their sales values can vary from the recorded fair value as described in Note 19. Fluctuations in realized sales proceeds versus the estimated fair value of the asset are generally due to a variety of factors including differences in subsequent market conditions, the level of bidder interest, timing and terms of the transactions, and management’s analysis of the benefits of the transaction.

ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONSEffective January 1, 2003, theThe Company adopted SFAS No. 143, “AccountingAccounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.”Obligations in 2003. SFAS No. 143 requires the Company to record the fair value of a legal liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. When a new liability is recorded the Company will capitalize the costs of the liability by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. The liability is accreted to its present value each period and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, the Company settles the obligation for its recorded amount or incurs a gain or loss.

The Company’s retirement obligations covered by SFAS No. 143 primarily include primarily active ash landfills, water treatment basins and the removal or dismantlement of certain plant and equipment. As of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, the Company had recorded liabilities of approximately $49$57 million and $26$51 million, respectively, related to asset retirement obligations. There are no assets that are legally restricted for purposes of settling asset retirement obligations. Upon adoption of SFAS No. 143,

The following table summarizes the Companyamounts recorded, an additional liability of approximately $13 million, a net asset of approximately $9 million, and a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle of approximately $2 million, after income taxes. Amounts recordedwhich were related to asset retirement obligations, during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005:

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Balance at January 1

 

 

$

51

 

 

 

$

25

 

 

Additional liability recorded from cumulative effect of accounting change

 

 

 

 

 

18

 

 

Additional liabilities incurred in the current period

 

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

Accretion expense

 

 

4

 

 

 

2

 

 

Change in estimated cash flows

 

 

1

 

 

 

(1

)

 

Translation adjustments

 

 

1

 

 

 

(1

)

 

Balance at December 31

 

 

$

57

 

 

 

$

51

 

 

CONDITIONAL ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS—In March 2005, and 2004 were as follows (in millions):

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

Balance at January 1

 

 

$

26

 

 

 

$

29

 

 

Additional liability recorded from cumulative effect of accounting change(1) 

 

 

18

 

 

 

 

 

Additional liabilities incurred in the current period

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

Accretion expense

 

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Change in estimated cash flows

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(6

)

 

Translation adjustments

 

 

(1

)

 

 

1

 

 

Balance at December 31

 

 

$

49

 

 

 

$

26

 

 


(1)          See New Accounting Pronouncements for discussion onthe FASB issued FASB Interpretation (“FIN”) No. 47 “AccountingAccounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations”, an interpretationObligations which requires the Company to record the estimated fair value of FASB Statementconditional asset retirement obligations. The Company’s asset retirement obligations covered by FIN No. 143.47 primarily include conditional obligations to demolish assets or return assets in good working condition at the end of the contractual or concession term, and for the removal of equipment containing asbestos and other contaminants. The Company recognized a cumulative effect adjustment in the statement of operations in 2005 of $2 million related to the adoption of FIN No. 47.

GUARANTOR ACCOUNTING—Pursuant to the Financial Accounting Standards Board InterpretationFIN No. (“FIN”) 45, “Guarantor’sGuarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Direct Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, at the inception of a guarantee, the Company


records the fair value of a guarantee as a liability, with the offset dependent on the circumstances under which the guarantee was issued.


INCOME TAXES—Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of the existing assets and liabilities, and their respective income tax bases. The Company establishes a valuation allowance when it is more likely than not that all or a portion of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. Contingent liabilities related to income taxes are recorded when the criteria for loss recognition under SFAS No. 5 “AccountingAccounting for Contingencies, as amended, have been met.

FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSLATION—A business’ functional currency is the currency of the primary economic environment in which the business operates and is generally the currency in which the business generates and expends cash. Subsidiaries and affiliates whose functional currency is other than the U.S. dollar translate their assets and liabilities into U.S. dollars at the current exchange rates in effect at the end of the fiscal period. The revenue and expense accounts of such subsidiaries and affiliates are translated into U.S. dollars at the average exchange rates that prevailed during the period. Translation adjustments are included in accumulated other comprehensive loss, a separate component of stockholders’ equity. Gains and losses on intercompany foreign currency transactions which are long-term in nature, which the Company does not intend to settle in the foreseeable future, are also recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss. Gains and losses that arise from exchange rate fluctuations on transactions denominated in a currency other than the functional currency are included in determining net income. For subsidiaries operating in highly inflationary economies, the U.S. dollar is considered to be the functional currency.

REVENUE RECOGNITION—The revenue of the regulated utilities segmentUtilities businesses is classified as regulated on the consolidated statement of operations. Revenues from the sale of energy are recognized in the period during which the sale occurs. The calculation of revenues earned but not yet billed is based on the number of days not billed in the month, the estimated amount of energy delivered during those days and the estimated average price per customer class for that month. The revenues from the contract generation and competitive supply segmentsGeneration segment are classified as non-regulated and are recorded based upon output delivered and capacity provided at rates as specified under contract terms or prevailing market rates. Revenues from power sales contracts entered into after 1991 with decreasing scheduled rates are recognized based on the output delivered at the lower of the amount billed or the average rate over the contract term.

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSESThe Company classifiesCorporate and other expenses include general and administrative expenses related to corporate staff functions and/or initiatives—primarily executive management, finance, legal, human resources, information systems and certain development costs which are not allocable to our business development expenses, including corporate depreciation and amortization, as General and Administrative.segments.

DEFERRED REGULATORY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES—The Company accounts for certain of its regulated operations under the provisions of SFAS No. 71, “AccountingAccounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation.”Regulation. As a result, AES records assets and liabilities that result from the regulated ratemaking process that would not be recorded under GAAP for non-regulated entities. Regulatory assets generally represent incurred costs that have been deferred due to the probability of future recovery in customer rates. Regulatory liabilities generally represent obligations to make refunds to customers. Management continually assesses whether the regulatory assets are probable of future recovery by considering factors such as applicable regulatory changes, recent rate orders applicable to other regulated entities and the status of any pending or potential deregulation legislation. If future recovery of costs ceases to be probable, the asset write-offs would be required to be recognized in operating income.

DERIVATIVES—The Company enters into various derivative transactions in order to hedge its exposure to certain market risks. AES primarily uses derivative instruments to manage its interest rate, commodity, and foreign currency exposures. The Company does not enter into derivative transactions for trading purposes.


Under SFAS No. 133, “AccountingAccounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended, the Company recognizes all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the balance sheet and measures those instruments at fair value. Changes in fair value of derivatives are recognized in earnings unless specific hedge criteria are met. Income and expense related to derivative instruments are recorded in the same category as generated by the underlying asset or liability.

SFAS No. 133 enables companies to designate qualifying derivatives as hedging instruments based on the exposure being hedged. These hedge designations include fair value hedges and cash flow hedges. Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is highly effective as, and is designated and qualifies as, a fair value hedge are recognized in earnings as offsets to the changes in fair value of the exposure being hedged. Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is highly effective as, and is designated as and qualifies as, a cash flow hedge are deferred in accumulated other comprehensive income and are recognized into earnings as the hedged transactions occur. Any ineffectiveness is recognized in earnings immediately. For all hedge contracts, the Company provides formal documentation of the hedge and effectiveness testing in accordance with SFAS No. 133. If AES deems that the derivative is not highly effective as a hedge, hedge accounting will be discontinued prospectively.

For cash flow hedges of forecasted transactions, AES must estimateestimates the future cash flows represented by the forecasted transactions, as well as evaluateevaluates the probability of occurrence and timing of such transactions. Changes in conditions or the occurrence of unforeseen events could require discontinuance of hedge accounting or could affect the timing for the reclassification of gains or losses on cash flow hedges from accumulated other comprehensive loss  (“AOCI”) into earnings.

In June 2003, the FASB issued DIG Issue C-20, that superseded DIG Issue C-11 and provided additional guidance related to the impact of certain price adjustment features on the ability of a contract to qualify for the normal purchases and sales exemption. In order for contracts to qualify for the exemption, they must first meet certain criteria, including requirements that the underlying price adjustment may not be considered extraneous and that the magnitude and direction of the impact of the price adjustment is consistent with the relevancy of the underlying. Additionally, there are restrictions on certain contracts with an underlying associated with currency exchange rates qualifying for the exemption. Under the transition provisions of DIG Issue C-20, the Company was required to record a cumulative effect of change in accounting principle adjustment of $43 million, net of income taxes on October 1, 2003 for the fair value of a power sales contract. This contract subsequently qualified for the normal purchases and sales exemption and the contract’s carrying value is being amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining life of the contract.

STOCK OPTIONS—Prior to 2003, theThe Company accountedaccounts for stock-based compensation plans under the recognition and measurement provisions of APB Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees”, and related interpretations. Effective January 1, 2003, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provision of SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS No. 148, prospectively to all employee awards granted, modified or settled after January 1, 2003. Prior

The new standard requires companies to 2002,recognize compensation cost relating to share-based payment transactions in their financial statements. That cost is to be measured based on the fair value of the equity or liability instruments issued. Starting January 1, 2003, we accounted for our share-based compensation awards under the Company’s plans generally vested over two years. Therefore, the cost related to stock-based employeefair value method prescribed under SFAS No. 123 and accounted for forfeitures on an actual basis, and therefore had reversed compensation includedexpense in the determination of net incomeperiod an award was forfeited. The method was applied prospectively for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, is less than what would have been recognized ifall employee awards granted, modified or settled after January 1, 2003. Currently, we use a Black-Scholes Option pricing model to estimate the fair value based method had been appliedof stock options granted to all awards sinceemployees.

In April 2005, the original effective date ofSEC amended the compliance dates for SFAS No. 123. However, if123(R), to allow companies to implement the standard at the beginning of their next fiscal year, instead of the next reporting period beginning after June 15, 2005. Accordingly, AES adopted SFAS No. 123 had been applied123(R) effective January 1, 2006. For transition purposes, AES elected the modified prospective application method. Under this application method, SFAS No. 123(R) applies to all grants sincenew awards and to awards modified, repurchased, or cancelled after the originalrequired effective date,date.

On November 10, 2005, the impact on net income would have been minimal since there were very few grants that would have had expense carried overFASB released the final FASB Staff Position No. SFAS 123(R)-3, Transition Election Related to 2004 and 2003.Accounting for the Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment Awards (“FSP SFAS 123(R)-3”). Effective January 1, 2006, AES adopted FSP SFAS 123(R)-3, which provides the Company the option to use the “short-cut method” for calculating the historical pool of windfall tax benefits upon adopting FAS 123(R).

SALES OF STOCK BY A SUBSIDIARYSales of stock by a subsidiary of the Company are accounted for as capital transactions pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission’sSEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 51 “AccountingAccounting for Sales of Stock by a Subsidiary”Subsidiary (“SAB 51”).


VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIESPENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT PLANSIn January 2003, the FASB issued FIN 46 which addresses consolidation by business enterprises of variable interest entities (“VIE”). The primary objective of FIN 46 is to provide guidance on the identification of and financial reporting for, entities over which control is achieved through means other than voting rights; such entities are known as VIEs. FIN 46 requires an enterprise to consolidate a VIE if that enterprise has a variable interest that will absorb a majority of the entity’s expected losses if they occur, receive a majority of the entity’s expected residual returns if they occur, or both. An enterprise shall consider the rights and obligations conveyed by its variable interests in making this determination.

On December 24, 2003, the FASB issued Financial Interpretation No. 46 (Revised 2003) Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46(R)” or “Revised Interpretation”), which partially deferred the effective date of FIN 46 for certain entities and makes other changes to FIN 46, including a more complete definition of variable interest, and an exemption for many entities defined as businesses.

The Company applied FIN 46adopted SFAS 158, Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, effective December 31, 2006, which requires recognition of an asset or liability in its financial statements relatingthe balance sheet reflecting the funded status of pension and other postretirement benefits plans with current-year changes in the funded status recognized in stockholders equity.  The Company recorded a cumulative adjustment to its interest in variable interest entities or potential variable interest entitiesadopt the recognition provisions of SFAS No. 158 as of December 31, 2003, and applied FIN 46(R) as2006. See Note 12 to these consolidated financial statements for the impact of March 31, 2004. Applicationthe adoption of FIN 46 asSFAS No. 158. AES will adopt the measurement date provisions of the standard for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 resulted in the special purpose business trusts that issued Term Convertible Preferred Securities no longer being consolidated (see Note 8). The application of FIN 46(R) did not have any additional impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.2008.

NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.Fair Value Measurements

In May 2004,September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157 Fair Value Measurement, (“SFAS No. 157”). SFAS No. 157 provides enhanced guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. The standard applies whenever other standards require (or permit) assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value. The standard does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances.

Over 40 current accounting standards within GAAP require (or permit) entities to measure assets and liabilities at fair value. Prior to the issuance of SFAS No. 157, the methods for measuring fair value were diverse and inconsistent, especially for items that are not actively traded. The standard clarifies that for items that are not actively traded, such as certain kinds of derivatives, fair value should reflect the price in a transaction with a market participant, including an adjustment for risk, not just the company’s mark-to-model value. The standard also requires expanded disclosure of the effect on earnings for items measured using unobservable data.

Under SFAS No. 157, fair value refers to the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants in the market in which the reporting entity transacts. SFAS No. 157 clarifies the principle that fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. In support of this principle, the standard establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the information used to develop those assumptions. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data, for example, the reporting entity’s own data. Under the standard, fair value measurements would be separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy.

SFAS No. 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the effect of this new standard on our consolidated financial statements.

Accounting forUncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Staff PositionStatement No. 109

FASB Interpretation 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (“FSP”FIN No. 48”) 106-2, whichclarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in our financial statements in accordance with FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (“SFAS No. 109”). FIN No. 48 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. It also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition.


The evaluation of a tax position is a two-step process.

The first step is recognition: The enterprise determines whether it is more likely than not that a tax position will be sustained upon examination, including resolution of any related appeals or litigation processes, based on the accountingtechnical merits of the position. In evaluating whether a tax position has met the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, the enterprise should presume that the position will be examined by the appropriate taxing authority that would have full knowledge of all relevant information.

The second step is measurement: A tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold is measured to determine the amount of benefit to recognize in the financial statements. The tax position is measured at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement.

Differences between tax positions taken in a tax return and amounts recognized in the financial statements will generally result in one or a combination of the following:

·       An increase in a liability for income taxes payable or a reduction of an income tax refund receivable

·       A reduction in a deferred tax asset or an increase in a deferred tax liability

A liability for unrecognized tax benefits will be classified as current to the extent that we anticipate making a payment within one year or the operating cycle, if longer. An income tax liability should not be classified as a deferred tax liability unless it results from a taxable temporary difference (that is, a difference between the tax basis of an asset or a liability as calculated using this Interpretation and its reported amount in the statement of financial position). FIN No. 48 does not change the classification requirements for deferred taxes.

Tax positions that previously failed to meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold will be recognized in the first subsequent financial reporting period in which that threshold is met. Previously recognized tax positions that no longer meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold will be derecognized in the first subsequent financial reporting period in which that threshold is no longer met. Use of a valuation allowance as described in SFAS No. 109 is not an appropriate substitute for the effectsderecognition of a tax position. The requirement to assess the need for a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets based on the sufficiency of future taxable income is unchanged by FIN No. 48.

The Company adopted FIN No. 48 on January 1, 2007 and estimates the cumulative effect of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvementchange in accounting principle to result in a decrease to retained earnings of approximately $50 to $100 million.

SFAS No. 159 The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Modernization ActFinancial Liabilities—including an amendment of 2003FAS 115 (“SFAS 159”).

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS 159, which allows entities to choose, at specified election dates, to measure eligible financial assets and liabilities at fair value that are not otherwise required to be measured at fair value. If a company elects the fair value option for an eligible item, changes in that item’s fair value in subsequent reporting periods must be recognized in current earnings. SFAS 159 also establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to draw comparison between entities that elect different measurement attributes for similar assets and liabilities. SFAS 159 is effective for the Company on January 1, 2008. We have not assessed the impact of SFAS 159 on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


EITF 06-6:   Application of Issue No. 05-7 Debtor’s Accounting for a Modification (or Exchange) of Convertible Debt Instruments

In June 2006 the FASB Emerging Issue Task Force (EITF) issued EITF 06-6 Application of Issue No. 05-7 Debtor’s Accounting for a Modification (or Exchange) of Convertible Debt Instruments. This guidance that addresses the treatment of a) whether a change in the fair value of an embedded conversion option resulting from a modification of a convertible debt instrument should be included in the analysis of whether there has been a substantial change in the debt instrument terms for determination if a debt extinguishment has occurred and b) how an issuer should account for modifications that do not result in a debt extinguishment. The consensus was made by the EITF that the change in the fair value of an embedded conversion option resulting from an exchange of or modification in the terms of debt instruments should not be included in the cash flow test to determine whether debt extinguishment accounting should be applied. It was also determined that when a convertible debt instrument is modified or exchanged in a transaction that is not accounted for as an extinguishment, an increase in the fair value of the embedded conversion option should reduce the carrying amount of the debt instrument with a corresponding increase in additional paid in capital.

The consensus in this Issue should be applied to modifications or exchanges of debt instruments occurring in interim or annual reporting periods beginning after Board ratification on November 29, 2006. We are currently evaluating the effect of this Issue on our consolidated financial statements.

EITF 06-7:   Issuer’s Accounting for a Previously Bifurcated Conversion Option in a Convertible Debt Instrument When the Conversion Option No Longer Meets the Bifurcation Criteria in FASB Statement No. 133

In September 2006 the FASB Emerging Issue Task Force (EITF)issued EITF 06-7 Issuer’s Accounting for a Previously Bifurcated Conversion Option in a Convertible Debt Instrument When the Conversion Option No Longer Meets the Bifurcation Criteria in FASB Statement No. 133 that addresses the ability for an entity to issue convertible debt with an embedded conversion option that is required to be bifurcated under SFAS 133 Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (SFAS 133)  if all conditions are met. The EITF reached a consensus that when an embedded conversion option in a convertible debt instrument no longer meets the bifurcation criteria in SFAS 133, an issuer should account for the previously bifurcated conversion option by reclassifying the carrying amount of the liability for the conversion option to shareholder’s equity. Any debt discount recognized when the conversion option was bifurcated from convertible debt should continue to be amortized. It was also determined that if a holder exercises a conversion option for which the carrying amount has previously been reclassified to shareholders’ equity, the issuer should recognize any unamortized discount remaining at the date of conversion immediately as interest expense. All relevant information pertaining to the period in which an embedded conversion option previously accounting under SFAS 133 no longer meets the separation criteria addressed in the pronouncement should be disclosed in the footnotes to the financial statements.

The consensus in this Issue should be applied to previously bifurcated conversion options in convertible debt instruments that cease to meet the bifurcation criteria in SFAS 133 in interim or annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2006. We are currently evaluating the effect of this Issue on our consolidated financial statements.

133




EITF 06-11:   Accounting for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards

In November 2006 the FASB Emerging Issue Task Force (EITF) issued EITF 06-11 Accounting for Income Tax Benefits of Dividends on Share-Based Payment Awards that addresses how a company should recognize the income tax benefit related to the payment of dividends on equity-classified employee share-based payment awards that are charged to retained earnings pursuant to SFAS 123(R) Share Based Payment. The EITF reached a consensus that the appropriate treatment of the income tax benefit should be recognized as an increase in additional paid-in capital. The realized income tax benefit recognized in additional paid-in capital should be included in the pool of excess tax benefits available to absorb future tax deficiencies on share-based payment awards. The tax benefit incurred for dividends paid to employees for non-vested equity-classified employee share-based payment awards shall not be recognized until the respective deduction reduces income taxes payable.

The consensus in this Issue should be applied prospectively to the income tax benefits of dividends on equity-classified employee share-based payment awards that are declared in fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2007. We are currently evaluating the effect of this Issue on our consolidated financial statements.

RESTATEMENT

The Company has previously identified certain material weaknesses related to its system of internal control over financial reporting. These material weaknesses, as described in the Company’s previously filed Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2005 included the following general areas:

·       Aggregation of control deficiencies at our Cameroonian subsidiary;

·       Lack of U.S. GAAP expertise in Brazilian businesses;

·       Treatment of intercompany loans denominated in other than the functional currency;

·       Derivative accounting; and

·       Income taxes.

During the fourth quarter 2006, in conjunction with continued remediation of our material weaknesses and overall strengthening of controls across our business, the Company identified certain additional errors which required the restatement of previously issued consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 and for the previously issued interim periods ending March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006 and September 30, 2006.

The restatement adjustments resulted in a decrease to previously reported income from continuing operations and net income of $24 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an increase of $2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. Additionally, the cumulative adjustment for all periods prior to 2004 resulted in an increase to accumulated deficit of $50 million.

The following table quantifies the net impact of the restatement corrections by key income statement line items for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and includes the resulting impact on diluted earnings per share from continuing operations. The primary line items affected include revenue, cost of sales, gain (loss) on foreign currency transactions, income tax expense and the related impacts on minority interest expense.


 

Year Ended
December 31,

 

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

 

(in millions, except per
share amounts)

 

Income from continuing operations as previously reported

 

$

598

 

$

266

 

Changes in income from continuing operations from restatement due to:

 

 

 

 

 

Increase in revenue

 

25

 

1

 

Decrease in cost of sales

 

5

 

18

 

(Increase) decrease in general and administrative expense

 

(4

)

1

 

Increase in other income

 

11

 

1

 

(Increase) in goodwill and asset impairment expense

 

(6

)

(1

)

(Increase) decrease in foreign currency transaction losses

 

(13

)

27

 

Decrease in equity earnings of affiliates

 

(6

)

(7

)

(Increase) in income tax expense

 

(27

)

(24

)

(Increase) in minority interest and other (1)

 

(9

)

(14

)

(Decrease) increase in income from continuing operations

 

(24

)

2

 

Income from continuing operations as restated

 

$

574

 

$

268

 

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations as previously reported

 

$

0.90

 

$

0.41

 

Changes due to restatement effects

 

(0.03

)

 

Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations as restated

 

$

0.87

 

$

0.41

 

Diluted shares outstanding

 

664.6

 

648.1

 


(1)          Minority interest and other includes $12 million and $13 million of minority interest expense for the periods ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively, related to the impact of the restatement adjustments at entities with minority interests.

The Company has been cooperating with an informal inquiry by the SEC Staff concerning the Company’s restatements and related matters, and has been providing information and documents to the SEC Staff on a voluntary basis. Because the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this inquiry, and the SEC Staff may disagree with the manner in which the Company has accounted for and reported the financial impact of the adjustments to previously filed financial statements, there may be a risk that the inquiry by the SEC could lead to circumstances in which the Company may have to further restate previously filed financial statements, amend prior filings or take other actions not currently contemplated.

The restatement adjustments include several key categories as described below:

Brazil Adjustments

Prior year errors related to certain subsidiaries in Brazil include the following:

·       decrease of the U.S. GAAP fixed asset basis and related depreciation at Eletropaulo of $21 million in 2005 and $16 million in 2004 (the “Act”)impact net of tax and minority interest is $4 million in 2005 and $4 million in 2004); and

·       other errors identified through account reconciliation or review procedures.

The cumulative impact on net income was an increase of $6 million and $3 million for employers that sponsor postretirement health care plans that provide prescription drug benefits. Onethe years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.


La Electricidad de Caracas (“EDC”)

Prior year errors related to the Company’s Venezuelan subsidiary, EDC, include the following:

·       $22 million revenue increase predominantly related to an error in updating the current tariff rates in the unbilled revenue calculation for 2005,

·       $10 million increase in foreign currency transaction expense posted incorrectly to the balance sheet in 2005, and

·       other errors identified through account reconciliation or review procedures.

The cumulative impact of all EDC adjustments on net income was an increase of $2 million for each of the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004.

Capitalization of Certain Costs

Certain errors were discovered with fixed asset balances at several of the Company’s subsidiaries maintainsfacilities related to capitalization of development costs, overhead and capitalized interest. The cumulative impact on net income for capitalization errors was a retiree health benefit plandecrease of $4 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and a decrease of $2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Derivatives

Adjustments were identified resulting from the detailed review of certain prior year contracts and include the following:

·       the evaluation of hedge effectiveness; and

·       the identification and evaluation of derivatives.

The most significant adjustment involved a power sales agreement signed in 2002 between the Company’s generation facility in Cartagena, Spain, an unconsolidated subsidiary accounted for using the equity method of accounting, and its power offtaker. The power sales agreement had a pricing component that currently includes a prescription drug benefitwas tied to the U.S. dollar, although the entity’s own functional currency was the Euro and that is provided to retired employees. The enactment of the Act did not haveofftaker was the Euro. In addition, a significant effect onmaintenance service agreement related to the subsidiaries retirement plan. The accumulated pension benefit obligationCartagena facility included a pricing mechanism that was tied to changes in the U.S. dollar, when the entity’s functional currency was the Euro and net periodic postretirement benefit costs associated with this retiree health plan currently reflect the effects ofservice provider’s functional currency was the Act. The effects of the Act, which were not material, were incorporated into the November 30, 2004 measurement of plan obligations as required by FSP 106-2.Yen.

Share-Based Payment.In December 2004,Under the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued a revisedguidance of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 123, “Share-Based Payment.” SFAS 123R eliminates133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, these contracts contained embedded derivatives that are required to be bifurcated from the intrinsiccontract and recorded at fair value method as an alternative method of accounting for stock-based awards under Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) No. 25 by requiring that all share-based payments to employees, including grants of stock options for all outstanding years, bewith changes in fair value recognized in the financial statements based on their fair values. It also revises the fair-value based method of accounting for share-based payment liabilities, forfeitures and modifications of stock-based awards and clarifies the guidance under SFAS No. 123 related to measurement of fair value, classifying an award as equity or as a liability and attributing compensation to reporting periods. In addition, SFAS No. 123R amends SFAS No. 95, “Statement of Cash Flows,” to require that excess tax benefits be reported as a financing cash flow rather than as an operating cash flow.

Effective January 1, 2003, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provision of SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS No. 148, prospectively to all employee awards granted, modified or settled after January 1, 2003. We adopted SFAS No. 123R and related guidance on January 1, 2006, using the modified prospective transition method. Under this transition method, compensation cost will be recognized (a) based on the requirements of SFAS No. 123R for all share-based awards granted subsequent to January 1, 2006 and (b) based on the original provisions of SFAS No. 123 for all awards granted prior to


January 1, 2006, but not vested as of this date. Results for prior periods will not be restated. Management is currently evaluating the effect of the adoption of SFAS No. 123R under the modified prospective application transition method, but does not expect the adoption to have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations   In March 2005, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation (“FIN”) No. 47 “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143,” which clarifies the term “conditional asset retirement obligation” as used in SFAS No. 143 “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.” Specifically, FIN 47 provides that an asset retirement obligation is conditional when the timing and/or method of settling the obligation is conditioned on a future event. Accordingly, an entity is required to recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Uncertainty about the timing and/or method of settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation should be factored into the measurement of the liability when sufficient information exists. This interpretation also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation. FIN 47 is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005

operations. The Company’s asset retirement obligations covered by FIN 47 primarily include conditional obligations to demolish assets or return assets in good working condition at the end of the contractual or concession term, and for the removal of equipment containing asbestos and other contaminants. As of December 31, 2005, the Company recorded additional asset retirement obligations in the amount of $18 million as anet result of the implementationthese adjustments was a decrease of FIN 47. The cumulative effect$3 million and an increase of the initial application$4 million in equity in earnings of this Interpretation was recognized as a change in accounting principle in the amount of $2 million, net of income tax benefit of $1 million.

The pro forma net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share resulting from the adoption of  FIN 47affiliates for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

The cumulative impact of all derivative adjustments on net income was a decrease of $4 million in 2005 and 2003, is not materially different froman increase of $5 million in 2004.

Income Tax Adjustments

Income tax adjustments relate primarily to the following:

·       A $20 million adjustment to correct income tax expense in the fourth quarter of 2005 as a result of an incorrect 2004 tax return to accrual adjustment, previously disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for September 30, 2006; and


·       A $21 million adjustment to record income tax benefit in 2004 as a result of a change in local income tax reporting for leases in Qatar, offset by adjustments to correct income tax expense for certain state deferred tax assets and other miscellaneous items.

The net impact of individual income tax adjustments resulted in an increase to income tax expense of approximately $18 million in 2005 and $7 million in 2004. The cumulative impact on income tax expense as a result of all restatement adjustments was an increase of approximately $27 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and an increase of approximately $24 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Other Adjustments

As a result of work performed in the course of our year end closing process, certain other adjustments were identified which decreased net income by $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 and increased net income by $1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Balance Sheet Adjustments

Adjustments at certain businesses in Brazil

The Company’s Brazilian business, Sul, records customer receipts used to provide line extensions as an offset against property, plant and equipment. However, the regulatory body of Brazil never issued any guidance with respect to the treatment of these customer receipts. As such, we believe that a more appropriate classification of these customer receipts would have been as a regulatory liability given that the actual amounts reportedtreatment as an offset against property, plant and equipment was never approved by the regulatory body of Brazil. Additionally, the regulatory liability treatment provides for the possibility of a future obligation back to the customers, which was confirmed by a recent regulatory ruling. The increase to property, plant and equipment and increase to long-term regulatory liabilities was $93 million and $62 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

Cartagena Deconsolidation

Upon the Company’s adoption of Financial Interpretation No.46, Variable Interest Entities (“FIN No. 46R”), as of January 1, 2004, the Company incorrectly continued to consolidate our business in Cartagena, Spain. An adjustment was made to deconsolidate the accompanying consolidatedCartagena balance sheet and statement of operations for those periods. Had FIN 47 been applied during all periods presented,and to reflect AES’ share of the asset retirement obligationsresults of its operations using the equity method of accounting. This resulted in a decrease to investments in affiliates of $55 and $39 million; a decrease in net property, plant and equipment of $570 and $387 million; and a decrease in non-recource debt of $579 and $497 million at December 31, 20032005 and 2004, respectively.

Restricted Cash

Certain balance sheet reclassifications were recorded at December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 would have been approximately $14that were the result of errors in the presentation of restricted cash. These reclasses resulted in a reduction in cash and cash equivalents and an increase in restricted cash by $63 million and $15$97 million,  respectively.in 2005 and 2004, respectively

RESTATEMENTShare-based Compensation

Subsequent to filing its restated annual reportThe Company recently concluded an internal review of accounting for share-based compensation (the “LTC Review”), which originally was disclosed in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on Form 10-K/A withFebruary 26, 2007. As a result of the Securities Exchange Commission on January 19, 2006,LTC Review, the Company discovered its previously issued restated annual report includedidentified certain errors in its previous accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities, minority interest expense and income taxes. Theshare-based compensation. These errors inrequired adjustments to the Company’s previous accounting for derivative instrumentsthese awards under the guidance of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock


Issued to Employees (“APB No. 25”), Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (“FAS No. 123”) and hedging activities resulted in differences in previously issued consolidated interimFASB Statement No. 123R (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (“FAS No. 123R”). As described below, the Company is recording adjustments to its prior financial statements resulting in additional cumulative pre-tax compensation expense for certain quarterlythe years 2000-2005 of $36 million ($26 million net of taxes).

A significant accounting issue identified in the LTC Review related to the determination of the “measurement date” with respect to share-based compensation awards. During the Review Period, the Company had generally used the grant date as the measurement date for accounting purposes, when in many cases the indicated grant date actually preceded the measurement date as correctly defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). The U.S. GAAP technical accounting literature in effect during the accounting periods in 2004 sufficientunder review includes varying definitions of the measurement date for purposes of determining share-based compensation expense. Under APB No. 25, applicable for the years 1997-2002, the measurement date for share-based compensation expense was defined as the date at which the Company finalized an individual’s share-based award, to require restatementinclude the number of units awarded at a determinable strike price. Under SFAS No. 123, the measurement date is determined when the share-based award is finalized and communicated to the individual.

Purposes and Scope of the LTC Review

The LTC Review was designed and conducted principally to determine whether any adjustments to the Company’s prior period interim results. The errors infinancial statements were required as a result of incorrect accounting for income taxesshare-based compensation, which includes stock options and minority interestrestricted stock units.

The Company’s Accounting Adjustments

As a result of the LTC Review, the Company has determined that adjustments resulting in charges for share-based compensation should be recorded for the years 2000 through 2005. The additional cumulative pre-tax compensation expense required restatementtotals $36 million ($26 million net of previously issued consolidated annual financial statements.taxes). The effect of recognizing additional non-cash, share-based compensation expense resulting from the charges mentioned above by year is as follows:

 

 

Pre-Tax

 

After-Tax

 

Fiscal Year Ended (in millions)

 

 

 

Expense

 

Expense

 

2000

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

6

 

 

2001

 

 

$

15

 

 

 

$

11

 

 

2002

 

 

$

8

 

 

 

$

5

 

 

2003

 

 

$

4

 

 

 

$

3

 

 

2004

 

 

$

 

 

 

$

 

 

2005

 

 

$

1

 

 

 

$

1

 

 

The Company reduced itsalso is recording a charge of $1 million (pre-tax) relating to the first three previously reported quarters of 2006, which primarily relate to prior year grants in which expense was carried forward to 2006.

The Company will reflect these adjustments by reducing stockholders’ equity by $12$25 million as of January 1, 2003 as2004 for the cumulative effect of the correction of errors for allthe periods precedingfrom January 1, 2003, and restated its consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 and its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004.

112




The restatement adjustments resulted in an increase to previously reported net income of $6 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 and in a decrease to previously reported net income of $17 million for the year ended2000 through December 31, 2003. There was no impact on gross margin or net cash flow from operating activities of the Company for any years presented. Based upon management’s review it has been determined that these errors were inadvertentGeneral and unintentional. The errors relate to the following areas:

A.   Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

The Company determined that it failed to perform adequate on-going effectiveness testing for three interest rate cash flow hedges and one foreign currency cash flow hedge during 2004 as required by SFAS No. 133. As a result, the Company should have discontinued hedge accounting and recognized changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments in earnings prospectively from the last valid effectiveness assessment until the earlier of either (1) the expiration of the derivative instrument or (2) the re-designation of the derivative instrument as a hedging activity.

The net impact related to the correction of these errors to previously reported net income resulted in a decrease of $4 million and an increase of $2 millionadministrative expense will be adjusted for the years ending December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

B.   Income Tax2005 and Minority Interest Adjustments

As a resultthe first three quarters of the Company’s year end closing review process, the Company discovered certain other errors related to the recording of income tax liabilities and, in one case, the associated impact on minority interest expense. The adjustments include:

·       An increase in income tax expense related to the recording of  certain historical withholding tax liabilities at one of our El Salvador subsidiaries;

·       An increase in minority interest expense related to a correction of the allocation of income tax expense to minority shareholders. This allocation pertained to certain deferred tax adjustments recorded in the original restatement at one of our Brazilian generating companies; and

·       A reduction of 2004 income tax expense related to adjustments derived from 2004 income tax returns filed in 2005.

The net impact related to the correction of these errors to previously reported net income resulted in an increase of $10 million and a decrease of $19 million, for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. In addition, the Company restated stockholders’ equity2006 as of January 1, 2003, by $12 million as a correction for these errors in all periods preceding January 1, 2003.

C.   Other Balance Sheet Reclassifications

Certain other balance sheet reclassifications were recorded at December 31, 2004 including a $45 million reclassification which reduced Accounts Receivables and increased Other Current Assets (regulatory assets) to ensure consistency of accounting among our subsidiary businesses.outlined above.


The following tables set forth the previously reported and restated amounts of selected items within the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004 and within the consolidated statements of comprehensive income and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004.

Selected Balance Sheet Data:Data

 

 

December 31, 2004

 

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts receivable, net of reserves

 

 

$

1,575

 

 

 

$

1,530

 

 

Other current assets

 

 

$

736

 

 

 

$

781

 

 

Total current assets

 

 

$

4,986

 

 

 

$

4,986

 

 

Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

 

$

1,142

 

 

 

$

1,081

 

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

 

$

1,656

 

 

 

$

1,707

 

 

Total current liabilities

 

 

$

4,894

 

 

 

$

4,884

 

 

Deferred income taxes

 

 

$

685

 

 

 

$

678

 

 

Other long-term liabilities

 

 

$

3,375

 

 

 

$

3,382

 

 

Total long-term liabilities

 

 

$

21,778

 

 

 

$

21,778

 

 

Minority interest

 

 

$

1,279

 

 

 

$

1,305

 

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

 

$

6,423

 

 

 

$

6,434

 

 

Accumulated deficit

 

 

$

1,815

 

 

 

$

1,844

 

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

$

3,643

 

 

 

$

3,641

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity

 

 

$

972

 

 

 

$

956

 

 


 

 

December 31, 2005

 

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts receivable, net of reserves

 

 

$

1,597

 

 

 

$

1,648

 

 

Other current assets

 

 

$

752

 

 

 

$

688

 

 

Total current assets

 

 

$

5,232

 

 

 

$

5,287

 

 

Property, plant and equipment, net

 

 

$

18,493

 

 

 

$

18,033

 

 

Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

 

$

1,093

 

 

 

$

1,091

 

 

Accrued and other liabilities

 

 

$

2,101

 

 

 

$

2,107

 

 

Total current liabilities

 

 

$

5,406

 

 

 

$

5,276

 

 

Deferred income taxes

 

 

$

721

 

 

 

$

777

 

 

Other long-term liabilities

 

 

$

3,279

 

 

 

$

3,334

 

 

Total long-term liabilities

 

 

$

20,766

 

 

 

$

20,432

 

 

Minority interest

 

 

$

1,611

 

 

 

$

1,626

 

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

 

$

6,517

 

 

 

$

6,561

 

 

Accumulated deficit

 

 

$

(1,214

)

 

 

$

(1,286

)

 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

 

 

$

(3,661

)

 

 

$

(3,656

)

 

Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity

 

 

$

29,432

 

 

 

$

28,960

 

 

 

Selected Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) Data:

 

For the Year Ended

 

 

December 31, 2004

 

December 31, 2003

 

 

December 31, 2005

 

December 31, 2004

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

(in millions, except per share amounts)

 

 

(in millions, except per share data)

 

Interest expense

 

 

$

1,941

 

 

 

$

1,932

 

 

 

$

1,986

 

 

 

$

1,984

 

 

 

 

$

1,891

 

 

 

$

1,893

 

 

 

$

1,921

 

 

 

$

1,920

 

 

Foreign currency transaction (losses) gains on net monetary position

 

 

$

(147

)

 

 

$

(165

)

 

 

$

99

 

 

 

$

99

 

 

Foreign currency transaction losses on net monetary position

 

 

$

88

 

 

 

$

101

 

 

 

$

163

 

 

 

$

136

 

 

Income tax expense

 

 

$

375

 

 

 

$

359

 

 

 

$

211

 

 

 

$

211

 

 

 

 

$

498

 

 

 

$

525

 

 

 

$

356

 

 

 

$

380

 

 

Minority interest expense

 

 

$

198

 

 

 

$

199

 

 

 

$

120

 

 

 

$

139

 

 

 

 

$

357

 

 

 

$

369

 

 

 

$

198

 

 

 

$

211

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

258

 

 

 

$

264

 

 

 

$

311

 

 

 

$

294

 

 

 

 

$

598

 

 

 

$

574

 

 

 

$

266

 

 

 

$

268

 

 

Net income (loss)

 

 

$

292

 

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

(435

)

 

 

$

(452

)

 

Net income

 

 

$

630

 

 

 

$

605

 

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

300

 

 

Foreign currency translation adjustment

 

 

$

113

 

 

 

$

110

 

 

 

$

370

 

 

 

$

366

 

 

 

 

$

57

 

 

 

$

72

 

 

 

$

110

 

 

 

$

85

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustments

 

 

$

22

 

 

 

$

18

 

 

 

$

286

 

 

 

$

286

 

 

Unrealized derivative (losses) gains

 

 

$

(72

)

 

 

$

(64

)

 

 

$

141

 

 

 

$

140

 

 

Minimum pension liability adjustment

 

 

$

(6

)

 

 

$

(12

)

 

 

$

18

 

 

 

$

18

 

 

Unrealized derivative losses

 

 

$

(71

)

 

 

$

(75

)

 

 

$

(64

)

 

 

$

(34

)

 

Comprehensive income

 

 

$

355

 

 

 

$

362

 

 

 

$

362

 

 

 

$

340

 

 

 

 

$

610

 

 

 

$

590

 

 

 

$

362

 

 

 

$

369

 

 

BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income from continuing operations

 

 

$

0.40

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.52

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

 

$

0.91

 

 

 

$

0.89

 

 

 

$

0.42

 

 

 

$

0.42

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

0.06

 

 

 

0.06

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

 

(1.32

)

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

Cumulative effect of accounting change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

$

0.46

 

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

 

$

(0.73

)

 

 

$

(0.76

)

 

 

 

$

0.96

 

 

 

$

0.93

 

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

 

$

0.47

 

 

DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

 

$

0.40

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.52

 

 

 

$

0.49

 

 

 

 

$

0.90

 

 

 

$

0.87

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

 

$

0.41

 

 

Discontinued operations

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

(1.32

)

 

 

(1.32

)

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

 

0.05

 

 

Cumulative effect of accounting change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

 

0.07

 

 

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle

 

 

 

 

 

(0.01

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

 

 

$

0.45

 

 

 

$

0.46

 

 

 

$

(0.73

)

 

 

$

(0.76

)

 

 

 

$

0.95

 

 

 

$

0.91

 

 

 

$

0.46

 

 

 

$

0.46

 

 

 

139




Selected Cash Flows Data:

 

 

For the Year Ended

 

 

 

 

December 31, 2004

 

December 31, 2003

 

 

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

As Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

 

($ in millions)

 

Cash provided by operating activities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income (loss)

 

 

$

292

 

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

(435

)

 

 

$

(452

)

 

Adjustments to net income (loss):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation and amortization of intangible
assets

 

 

$

801

 

 

 

$

799

 

 

 

$

755

 

 

 

$

755

 

 

Provision for deferred taxes

 

 

$

200

 

 

 

$

190

 

 

 

$

(89

)

 

 

$

(89

)

 

Minority interest expense

 

 

$

198

 

 

 

$

199

 

 

 

$

120

 

 

 

$

139

 

 

Other

 

 

$

296

 

 

 

$

322

 

 

 

$

(123

)

 

 

$

(123

)

 

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities

 

 

$

226

 

 

 

$

78

 

 

 

$

697

 

 

 

$

576

 

 

Other assets and liabilities

 

 

$

(235

)

 

 

$

(108

)

 

 

$

(261

)

 

 

$

(142

)

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

 

$

1,571

 

 

 

$

1,571

 

 

 

$

1,642

 

 

 

$

1,642

 

 

 

 

December 31, 2005

 

December 31, 2004

 

 

 

Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

Previously
Reported

 

As Restated

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

Net income

 

 

$

630

 

 

 

$

605

 

 

 

$

298

 

 

 

$

300

 

 

Adjustments to net income:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation and amortization of intangible assets

 

 

$

889

 

 

 

$

864

 

 

 

$

799

 

 

 

$

777

 

 

Provision for deferred taxes

 

 

$

100

 

 

 

$

135

 

 

 

$

190

 

 

 

$

208

 

 

Minority interest expense

 

 

$

361

 

 

 

$

373

 

 

 

$

199

 

 

 

$

211

 

 

Other

 

 

$

92

 

 

 

$

132

 

 

 

$

322

 

 

 

$

297

 

 

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Decrease) increase in other assets

 

 

$

90

 

 

 

$

84

 

 

 

$

(71

)

 

 

$

(51

)

 

(Decrease) increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities

 

 

$

(79

)

 

 

$

(119

)

 

 

$

78

 

 

 

$

64

 

 

Increase (decrease) in other liabilities

 

 

$

45

 

 

 

$

45

 

 

 

$

(37

)

 

 

$

(38

)

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

 

$

2,165

 

 

 

$

2,154

 

 

 

$

1,571

 

 

 

$

1,608

 

 

 


2.   INVESTMENTS

The following table sets forth the Company’s short-term investments were invested as follows (in millions):of December 31, 2006 and 2005:

 

December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

HELD-TO-MATURITY:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certificates of deposit

 

$

15

 

$

141

 

 

$

46

 

$

16

 

Mutual funds

 

1

 

 

 

2

 

1

 

Government debt securities

 

7

 

 

 

2

 

6

 

Less: discontinued operations

 

 

(4

)

Subtotal

 

23

 

141

 

 

50

 

19

 

AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government debt securities

 

261

 

87

 

Mutual Funds

 

248

 

80

 

Common Stock

 

47

 

 

Certificates of Deposits

 

43

 

5

 

Money market funds

 

5

 

 

 

34

 

5

 

Mutual Funds

 

80

 

115

 

Government debt securities

 

87

 

 

Auction Rate Securities .

 

1

 

12

 

Other

 

5

 

 

Auction Rate Securities

 

 

1

 

Subtotal

 

178

 

127

 

 

633

 

178

 

TRADING:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government debt securities

 

2

 

 

 

4

 

2

 

Subtotal

 

2

 

 

 

4

 

2

 

Total Short-term Investments

 

640

 

199

 

Total Long-term investments

 

47

 

 

TOTAL

 

$

203

 

$

268

 

 

$

687

 

$

199

 

 

The investments are classified as either held-to-maturity, available-for-sale or trading. The amortized cost and estimated fair value of the held-to-maturity investments were approximately the same at December 31, 20052006 and 2004.2005. The available-for-sale and trading investments are recorded at fair value. At


December 31, 2006 and 2005, and 2004, approximately $10 $8million and $136$10 million, respectively, of investments classified as held-to-maturity were restricted or pledged as collateral.

As of December 31, 2006, the stated maturities for the investments (including restricted investments) ranged from four months to 30 years.

At December 31, 2005 and 2004,2006, there were no amountswas $3 million included in accumulated other comprehensive incomeloss for available-sale-securities.available-for-sale securities and no balance at December 31, 2005. Proceeds from the sales of available-for-sale securities were $1.6billion, $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Gross realized gains on these sales were $31 million and $3 million for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. There were no realized gains recognized on sales of available-for-sale securities in 2006. The cost of the securities is determined using the specific identification method.

The Company made its first significant investment in the greenhouse gas emission area, acquiring a 9.9% ownership interest in AgCert International (“AgCert”) for $52 million. AgCert is an Ireland-based company which uses agricultural sources to produce greenhouse gas emission offsets under the Kyoto protocol. This investment is classified as long-term available-for-sale investment and is revalued at the end of each reporting period. As of December 31, 2006, the Company has recorded a gross unrealized loss on this investment of $5 million. The Company has deemed this loss to be temporary.

3.   INVENTORY

Inventories, for our purposes, consist of the following items: coal, fuel oil and other raw materials used to generate power, and spare parts and supplies used to maintain power generation and distribution facilities.

Most of the company’sCompany’s inventories are valued on the average cost method (67%(64%) or the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) method (29%(28%). Inventories stated under the last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) method represent 4%8% of total inventories in 2005.2006. If the FIFO method, which approximates current replacement cost, had been used for these LIFO inventories, the total amount of these inventories would have increased by approximately $11$18 million. Inventory is accounted for at the lower of cost orof market.

Inventory consistsThe following table summarizes our inventory as of the following (in millions):December 31, 2006 and 2005:

 

December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

Coal, fuel oil and other raw materials

 

$

233

 

$

193

 

 

$

242

 

$

232

 

Spare parts and supplies

 

227

 

225

 

 

276

 

225

 

 

$

460

 

$

418

 

Total

 

$

518

 

$

457

 

 


4.   DEFERRED REGULATORY ASSETS & LIABILITIES

The Company has recorded deferred regulatory assets and liabilities that it expects to pass through to its customers in accordance with, and subject to, regulatory provisions as follows (in millions):follows:

 

December 31,

 

 

December 31,

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

 

(in millions)

 

Current assets

 

$

441

 

$

390

 

 

$

481

 

$

438

 

Noncurrent assets

 

635

 

613

 

 

561

 

644

 

Total assets

 

$

1,076

 

$

1,003

 

 

$

1,042

 

$

1,082

 

Current liabilities

 

$

211

 

$

139

 

 

359

 

211

 

Noncurrent liabilities

 

506

 

455

 

 

581

 

599

 

Total liabilities

 

$

717

 

$

594

 

 

$

940

 

$

810

 

 


The current portion of the deferred regulatory asset and liability is recorded in either other current assets or other current liabilities, respectively, on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The noncurrent portion of the deferred regulatory asset and liability is recorded in either other assets andor other long-term liabilities, respectively, in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Recovery of certain regulatory assets at the Company’s subsidiaries is provided without a rate of return during the recovery period. All other regulatory assets are recovered with a rate of return. The following table summarizes the amounts of regulatory assets probable of recovery without a rate of return at December 31, 20052006 and 2004 are as follows (in millions):2005.

 

 

2005

 

2004

 

Recovery Period

 

Current:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPL Deferred fuel costs and other

 

$

41

 

$

2

 

Through 2006

 

Foreign subsidiary costs

 

12

 

4

 

Through 2006

 

Total current

 

$

53

 

$

6

 

 

 

Long Term (IPL):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related to deferred income taxes

 

$

87

 

$

88

 

Various

 

Unamortized reacquisition premium on debt

 

15

 

15

 

Over remaining life of debt

 

Deferred Midwest ISO costs

 

21

 

8

 

To be determined (1)

 

Asset retirement obligation costs

 

9

 

 

Over book life of assets

 

NOx project expenses - Pete unit 2 precipitator

 

2

 

2

 

Through 2021

 

Total long term

 

$

134

 

$

113

 

 

 

Total

 

$

187

 

$

119

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

 

 

 

 

2006

 

2005

 

Recovery Period

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

 

Current Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deferred fuel costs and other

 

$

50

 

$

51

 

Through 2007

 

Noncurrent Assets (IPL):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defined benefit pension obligations

 

$

147

 

$

 

Service lives of employees

 

Related to deferred income taxes

 

81

 

87

 

Various

 

Unamortized reacquisition premium on debt

 

18

 

15

 

Over remaining life of debt

 

Deferred Midwest ISO costs

 

35

 

21

 

To be determined(1)

 

Asset retirement obligation costs

 

10

 

9

 

Over book life of assets

 

Interest rate hedge and other

 

9

 

2

 

Through 2021

 

Total noncurrent

 

$

300

 

$

134

 

 

 

Total

 

$

350

 

$

185

 

 

 


(1)          Deferred per specific rate order, recoveryRecovery is probable, but not yet determineddetermined.

Deferred Fuel.Fuel: Deferred fuel costs are a component of current regulatory assets and are expected to be recovered through future fuel adjustment charge proceedings. TheFor our El Salvadorian businesses, the deferred fuel adjustment is the result of variances between the actual fuel costs and the fuel costs recovered in the tariffs. Our El Salvadorian businesses are permitted to recover this variance through the reset of future tariffs each six months and therefore, these costs are deferred and amortized into fuel expense in the same period as the tariffs are adjusted. For IPL, the Company records deferred fuel in accordance with standards prescribed by the United States Federal EnergyIndiana Utility Regulatory Commission.Commission (“IURC”). The deferred fuel adjustment is the result of variances between estimated fuel and purchased power costs in IPL’s fuel adjustment charge and actual fuel and purchased power costs. IPL is permitted to recover underestimated fuel and purchased power costs in future rates through the fuel adjustment charge proceedings and therefore the costs are deferred and amortized into fuel expense in the same period that IPL’s rates are adjusted.

117Defined Benefit Pension Obligations: Upon the adoption of SFAS No. 158, the adjustment that IPL would have recorded to Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income to recognize the funded status of its defined benefit plans, has been recorded to Long-term Regulatory Assets. This amount represents a cost allowable to be recovered in future rates.